Information Extraction is the process of automatically obtaining knowledge from plain text. Because of the ambiguity of written natural language, Information Extraction is a difficult task. Ontology-based Information Extraction (OBIE) reduces this complexity by including contextual information in the form of a domain ontology. The ontology provides guidance to the extraction process by providing concepts and relationships about the domain. However, OBIE systems have not been widely adopted because of the difficulties in deployment and maintenance. The Ontology-based Components for Information Extraction (OBCIE) architecture has been proposed as a form to encourage the adoption of OBIE by promoting reusability through modularity. In this paper, we propose two orthogonal extensions to OBCIE that allow the construction of hybrid OBIE systems with higher extraction accuracy and a new functionality. The first extension utilizes OBCIE modularity to integrate different types of implementation into one extraction system, producing a more accurate extraction. For each concept or relationship in the ontology, we can select the best implementation for extraction, or we can combine both implementations under an ensemble learning schema. The second extension is a novel ontology-based error detection mechanism. Following a heuristic approach, we can identify sentences that are logically inconsistent with the domain ontology. Because the implementation strategy for the extraction of a concept is independent of the functionality of the extraction, we can design a hybrid OBIE system with concepts utilizing different implementation strategies for extracting correct or incorrect sentences. Our evaluation shows that, in the implementation extension, our proposed method is more accurate in terms of correctness and completeness of the extraction. Moreover, our error detection method can identify incorrect statements with a high accuracy.
JurafskyDMartinJH. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, 2nd edn.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008, p. 725.
2.
GruberTR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition1993; 5(2): 199–220.
3.
WimalasuriyaDCDouD. Ontology-based information extraction: An introduction and a survey of current approaches. Journal of Information Science2010; 36: 306–323.
4.
SrinivasanPQiuXY. GO for gene documents. BMC Bioinformatics2007; 8(9): S3.
5.
GutierrezFWimalasuriyaDCDouD. Using information extractors with the Neural ElectroMagnetic Ontologies. In: OTM international conference on ontologies, databases and application of semantics, 2011, pp. 31–32.
6.
WimalasuriyaDCDouD. Using multiple ontologies in information extraction. In: ACM conference on information and knowledge management, 2009, pp. 235–244.
7.
GutierrezFDouDFickasSGriffithsG. Providing grades and feedback for student summaries by ontology-based information extraction. In: ACM conference on information and knowledge management, 2012, pp. 1722–1726.
8.
WimalasuriyaDCDouD. Components for information extraction: Ontology-based information extractors and generic platforms. In: ACM conference on information and knowledge management, 2010, pp. 9–18.
9.
BankoMCafarellaMJSoderlandSBroadheadMEtzioniO. Open information extraction from the web. In: International joint conference on artificial intelligence, 2007, pp. 2670–2676.
10.
BankoMEtzioniO. The tradeoffs between open and traditional relation extraction. In: Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics with the human language technology, 2008, pp. 28–36.
11.
de MarneffeMCRaffertyANManningCD. Finding contradictions in text. In: Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics with the human language technology, 2008, pp. 1039–1047.
12.
RitterADowneyDSoderlandSEtzioniO. It’s a contradiction – no, it’s not: A case study using functional relations. In: ACL conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2008, pp. 11–20.
13.
FlourisGManakanatasDKondylakisHPlexousakisDAntoniouG. Ontology change: Classification and survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review2008; 23(2): 117–152.
14.
GutierrezFDouDFickasSMartiniAZongH. Hybrid ontology-based information extraction for automated text grading. In: IEEE conference on machine learning and applications, 2013, pp. 359–364.
15.
WuFWeldDS. Autonomously semantifying Wikipedia. In: ACM conference on information and knowledge management, 2007, pp. 41–50.
16.
WuFWeldDS. Automatically refining the Wikipedia infobox ontology. In: International conference on World Wide Web, 2008, pp. 635–644.
17.
AgichteinEGravanoL. Snowball: Extracting relations from large plain-text collections. In: ACM international conference on digital libraries, 2000, pp. 85–94.
18.
RiedelSYaoLMcCallumA. Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In: European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, 2010, pp. 148–163.
19.
NebhiK. Ontology-based information extraction for french newspaper articles. In: Annual german conference on artificial intelligence, 2012, pp. 237–240.
20.
NebhiK. Ontology-based information extraction from twitter. In: Workshop on information extraction and entity analytics on social media, 2012, pp. 17–22.
21.
WhetzelPLNoyNFShahNHAlexanderPRNyulasCTudoracheTMusenMA. BioPortal: Enhanced functionality via new web services from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications. Nucleic Acids Research2011; 39(suppl. 2): W541–W545.
22.
MullerHKennyESternbergP. Textpresso: An ontology-based information retrieval and extraction system for biological literature. PLoS Biology2004; 2(11): 1984–1998.
23.
YildizBMikschS. Motivating ontology-driven information extraction. In: International conference on Semantic Web and digital libraries, 2007, pp. 45–53.
24.
KrishnamurthyRLiYRaghavanSReissFVaithyanathanSZhuH. SystemT: A system for declarative information extraction. SIGMOD Record2008; 37(4): 7–13.
25.
CunninghamHMaynardDBontchevaKTablanV. GATE: A framework and graphical development environment for robust NLP tools and applications. In: Anniversary meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, pp. 168–175.
26.
HearstMA. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: Conference on computational linguistics, 1992. pp. 539–545.
27.
EtzioniOCafarellaMDowneyDKokSPopescuAMShakedT. Web-scale information extraction in KnowItAll (preliminary results). InInternational conference on World Wide Web, 2004, pp. 100–110.
28.
EtzioniOCafarellaMDowneyDPopescuAMShakedTSoderlandS. Unsupervised named-entity extraction from the web: an experimental study. Artificial Intelligence2005; 165(1): 91–134.
29.
FaderASoderlandSEtzioniO. Identifying relations for open information extraction. In: ACL conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2011, pp. 1535–1545.
30.
MausamSchmitzMSoderlandSBartREtzioniO. Open language learning for information extraction. In: ACL conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning, 2012. pp. 523–534.
31.
MintzMBillsSSnowRJurafskyD. Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: ACL conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2009, pp. 1003–1011.
32.
SnowRJurafskyDNgAY. Learning syntactic patterns for automatic hypernym discovery. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 17. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005, pp. 1297–1304.
33.
YakushijiAMiyaoYOhtaTTateisiYTsujiiJ. Automatic construction of predicate-argument structure patterns for biomedical information extraction. In: ACL conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2006, pp. 284–292.
34.
SwansonDR. Fish oil, Raynaud’s syndrome, and undiscovered public knowledge. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine1986; 30: 7–18.
35.
LyonsR. The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analysis. Statistics, Politics, and Policy2011, 2(1): article 2.
36.
IoannidisJPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine2005, 2(8): e124.
37.
EtzioniOBankoMSoderlandSWeldDS. Open information extraction from the web. Communications of the ACM2008, 51(12): 68–74.
38.
KarpickeJDRoedigerHL. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science2008, 319(5865): 966–968.
39.
WhittingtonDHuntH. Approaches to the computerized assessment of free text responses. In: Computer-assisted assessment conference, 1999, pp. 207–219.
40.
LinCY. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In: ACL workshop on text summarization branches out, 2004, pp. 25–26.
41.
FoltzPWLahamDLandauerTK. Automated essay scoring: Applications to educational technology. In: Conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, 1999, pp. 939–944.
42.
FranzkeMStreeterL. Building student summarization, writing and reading comprehension skills with guided practice and automated feedback. White paper from Pearson Knowledge Technologies, 2006.
43.
BrentEAtkissonCGreenN. Time-shifted online collaboration: Creating teachable moments through automated grading. In: JuanAA (ed.) Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative environments: Emergent computational technologies for e-learning support. IGI Global, 2010, pp. 55–73.
44.
MitchellTRussellTBroomheadPAldridgeN. Towards robust computerized marking of free-text responses. In: Computer-assisted assessment conference, 2002, pp. 233–249 .
45.
TatarDSerbanGMihisAMihalceaR. Textual entailment as a directional relation. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology2009; 41(1): 53–64.
46.
DaganIGlickmanO. Probabilistic textual entailment: Generic applied modeling of language variability. In: PASCAL workshop on learning methods for text understanding and mining, 2004.
47.
CarlsonABetteridgeJHruschkaERMitchellTM. Coupling semi-supervised learning of categories and relations. In: NAACL HLT workshop on semi-supervised learning for natural language processing, 2009, pp. 1–9.
48.
DietterichTG. Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: International workshop on multiple classifier systems, 2000, pp. 1–15.
49.
SillJTakacsGMackeyLLinD. Feature-weighted linear stacking, http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0460 (2009, accessed 10 July 2014).
50.
GutierrezFDouDFickasSGriffithsG. Online Reasoning for Ontology-based Error Detection in Text. In: OTM international conference on ontologies, databases and application of semantics, 2014, pp. 562–579.
51.
WangHHorridgeMRectorADrummondNSeidenbergJ. Debugging OWL-DL ontologies: A heuristic approach. In: International conference on the Semantic Web, 2005, pp. 745–757.
52.
MillerG. Wordnet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 1995, 38: 39–41.
53.
McCallumANigamK. A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes text classification. In: AAAI workshop on learning for text categorization, 1998, pp. 41–48.
54.
LaffertyJMcCallumAPereiraF. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: International conference on machine learning, 2001, pp. 282–289.
55.
MaynardDPetersWLiY. Metrics for Evaluation of Ontology-based Information Extraction. In: WWW workshop on evaluation of ontologies for the Web, 2006.
56.
CimianoPLadwigGStaabS. Gimme’ the context: Context-driven automatic semantic annotation with C-PANKOW. In: ACM international conference on World Wide Web, 2005, pp. 332–341.
