Advertisement

A Conceptual Modeling Approach to Semantic Document Retrieval

  • Terje Brasethvik
  • Jon Atle Gulla
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2348)

Abstract

This paper describes an approach to semantic document retrieval geared towards cooperative document management. In our conceptual modeling approach, a semantic modeling language is used to construct a domain model of the subject domain referred to by the document collection. This domain model is actively used for the tasks of document classification and search. Moreover, linguistic techniques are used to facilitate both the construction of the model and its use. This paper presents our prototype model-based classification and search tool and how it is applied on a document collection from a Norwegian company.

Keywords

Modeling Language Domain Model Resource Description Framework Word Form Subject Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Gulla, J. A. and T. Brasethvik (2001). A model driven ERP Environment with search facilities. Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems NLDB, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poncia, G. and B. Pernici (1997). A methodology for the design of distributed web systems. CAISE*97, Barcelona, Spain, Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    German, D. M. and D. D. Cowan (1999). Formalizing the specification of Web applications. Advances in conceptual modeling (Workshop of ER’99), Paris, Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W3CSW (2001). Semantic Web Initiavive, http://www.w3c.org/2001/sw/, Accessed:December 2001.
  5. 5.
    Fensel, D. (2001). The Ontoweb Project, http://www.ontoweb.org:http://www.ontoweb.org, Accessed:July 2001
  6. 6.
    Voss, A., K. Nakata, et al. (1999). Collaborative information management using concepts. 2nd International Workshop IIIS-99, Copenhague, DK, Postprocee-dings published by IGP, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sulllivan, D. (2001). Document Warehousing and Text Mining, Wiley Computer Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weibel, S. (1995). “Metadata-The foundations for resource descriptions.” D-LIB Magazine(July 1995).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller (2001). Semantic web and digital libraries. European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, Germany, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation for organising information. Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bunge, M. (1998). The Philosophy of science-from problem to theory, revised edition, Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sølvberg, A. (1998). Data and what they refer to. Conceptual modeling: Historical perspectives and future trends, In conjunction with 16th Int. Conf. on Conceptual modeling, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Refedit (2000), “The referent model editor homepage”, http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~ppp/referent/, Accessed: February 2002.
  14. 14.
    Pubgene (2001). The Pubgene database and tools, http://www.pubgene.org, Accessed:December 2001.
  15. 15.
    BSCW (1999). Basic Support for Cooperative Work on the WWW, http://bscw. gmd.de, Accessed:May 1999.
  16. 16.
    Farshchian, B. A. (1998). ICE: An object-oriented toolkit for tailoring collaborative Web-applications. IFIP WG8.1 Conference on Information Systems in the WWW Environment, Beijing, China., 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FirstClass (1999). FirstClass Collaborative Classroom, http://www.schools.softarc.com/, Accessed: May, 1999
  18. 18.
    Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, et al. (2001). “The Semantic Web.” Scientific Amerian(5).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W3CRDF (1998). Resource Description Framework-Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/Metadata/RDF/, Accessed:March 2000
  20. 20.
    W3CRDFS (2000). The RDF Schema Specification, http://www.w3.org/TR/ 2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/.
  21. 21.
    Karvounarakis, G., V. Christophides, et al. (2000). Querying semistructured (meta)data and schemas on the web: The case of RDF and RDFS, http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst/RDF/rdfquerying.pdf, September 2000.
  22. 22.
    Gruber, T. (1995). “Towards Priciples for the Design of Ontologies used for Knowledge Sharing.” Human and Computer Studies 43(5/6): 907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uschold, M. (1996). Building Ontologies: Towards a unified methodology. The 16th annual conference of the British Computer Society Specialist Group on Expert Systems, Cambridge (UK), 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Domingue, J. (1998). Tadzebao and WebOnto: Discussing, Browsing, and Editing Ontologies on the Web. 11th Banff Knowledge Aquisition for Knowledge-based systems Workshop, Banff, Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fensel, D., J. Angele, et al. (1999). On2Broker: Improving access to information sources at the WWW: http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/www-broker/o2/o2.pdf, Accessed: May, 1999.
  26. 26.
    Swartout, B., R. Patil, et al. (1996). Ontosaurus: A tool for browsing and editing ontologies. 9th Banff Knowledge Aquisition for KNowledge-based systems Workshop, Banff, Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Galen (1999). Why Galen-The need for Integrated medical systems, http://www.galen-organisation.com/approach.html, Accessed:March 2000.
  28. 28.
    OMNI (1999). OMNI: Organizing Medical Networked Information, http://www.omni.ac.uk/, Accessed: May, 1999.
  29. 29.
    Soamares de Lima, L., A. H. F. Laender, et al. (1998). A Hierarchical Approach to the Automatic Categorization of Medical Documents. CIKM*98, Bethesda, USA, ACM, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spriterm (1999). Spriterm-hälso och sjukvårdens gemensamma fakta och termdatabas, http://www.spri.se/i/Spriterm/i-prg2.htm, Accessed:March 2000.
  31. 31.
    Ontoquery (2001). The Ontoquery project-description, http://www.ontoquery.dk, Accessed:December 2001.
  32. 32.
    DAML, P. (2000). The DARPA Agent Markup Language Homepage, http://www.daml.org, Accessed:December 2001.
  33. 33.
    OIL (2001). Ontology Interface Layer, http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/, Accessed: December 2001.
  34. 34.
    Schneiderman, B., D. Byrd, et al. (1997). “Clarifying Search: A User-Interface Framework for Text Searches.” D-Lib Magazine(January 1997).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strzalkowski, T. (1999). Natural Language Information Retrieval, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strzalkowski, T., G. Stein, et al. (1998). Natural Language Information Retrieval-TREC-7 report. TREC-7, 1998.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arampatzis, A. T., T. P. van der Weide, et al. (1999). Linguistically Motivated Information Retrieval, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scirus (2001). SCIRUS for scientific information only, http://www.scirus.com, Accessed:December 2001.
  39. 39.
    Métais, E. (1999). The role of knowledge and reasoning i CASE Tools, University of Versailles.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fliedl, G., C. Kop, et al. (1997). NTS-based derivation of KCPM Perspective Determiners. 3rd Int. workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB’97), Vancouver, Ca, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tjoa, A. M. and L. Berger (1993). Transformation of Requirement Specifications Expressed in Natural Language into EER Model. 12th Int. conceference on Entity-Relation approach, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terje Brasethvik
    • 1
  • Jon Atle Gulla
    • 2
  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheim
  2. 2.Elexir Sprach- und InformationstechnologieMunich

Personalised recommendations