Keyword extraction rules based on a part-of-speech hierarchy

International Journal of Advanced Media and Communication

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 138-153

  Khoury, Richard ^a   Karray, Fakhreddine ^a   Kamel, Mohamed S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Keyword extraction; Knowledge acquisition; Language models; Natural Language Processing; NLP; Part of speech; Text analysis

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; EXTRACTION; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; SYNTACTICS;

KEYWORD EXTRACTION; LANGUAGE MODEL; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PART OF SPEECH; TEXT ANALYSIS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 44649085565     PISSN: 14624613     EISSN: 17418003     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJAMC.2008.018504     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Andrenucci, A. and Sneiders, E. (2005) 'Automated question answering: review of the main approaches', Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, Sydney, Australia, Vol. 1, pp.514-519.
2. Braz, R., Girju, R., Punyakanok, V., Roth, D. and Sammons, M. (2005) 'An inference model for semantic entailment in natural language', AAAI'05 pp.1678-1679.
3. Brill, E. (1995a). 'Transformation-based error-driven learning and natural language processing: A case study in part-of-speech tagging', Computational Linguistics, Vol. 21, pp.543-565.
4. Brill, E. (1995b) 'Unsupervised learning of disambiguation rules for part of speech tagging', Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora, pp.1-13.
5. Chelba, C. (2001) 'Portability of syntactic structure for language modeling', Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Philadelphia, USA, Vol. 1, pp.a-d.
6. Francis, W.N. and Kučera, H. (1964) Manual of Information to Accompany a Standard Corpus of Present-day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers, Department of Linguistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
7. Lin, D. (1998) 'Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR', Proceedings of the Evaluation of Parsing Systems: Workshop at the 1st International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Granada, Spain, pp.112-120.
8. Marcus, M., Santorini, B. and Marcinkiewicz, M.A. (1993) 'Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank', Computational Linguistics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.313-330.
9. Michael, I. (1970) English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
10. Russel, S. and Norvig, P. (1995) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Prentice-Hall Series in Artificial Intelligence, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
11. Santorini, B. (1990) Part-of-speech Tagging Guidelines for the Penn Treebank Project, Technical Report MS-CIS-90-47, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
12. Sebastiani, F. (2002) 'Machine learning in automated text categorization', ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.1-47.
13. Shamsfard, M. and Barforoush, A.A. (2003) 'The state of the art in ontology learning: A framework for comparison', The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.293-316.
14. Soderland, S.G. (1996) Learning Text Analysis Rules for Domain-specific Natural Language Processing, Technical Report UM-CS-1996-087.
15. Soo, V-W., Lin, S-Y., Yang, S-Y., Lin, S-N. and Chen, S-L. (2005) 'A cooperative multi-agent platform for invention based on ontology and patent document analysis', Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, Coventry, UK, Vol. 1, pp.411-416.