skip to main content
10.1145/2843043.2843378acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesaus-cswConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

State of the art in knowledge extraction from online polls: a survey of current technologies

Published:01 February 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

The ongoing research and development in the field of Natural Language Processing has lead to a great number of technologies in its context. There have been major benefits when it comes to bringing together the worlds of natural language and semantic technologies, so more and more potential areas of application emerge. One of these is the subject of this paper, in particular the possible ways of knowledge extraction from single-question online polls.

With concepts of the Social Web, internet users want to contribute and express their opinion. As a consequence, the popularity of online polls is rapidly increasing; they can be found in news articles of media sites, on blogs etc. It would be desirable to bring intelligence to the application of polls by using technologies of the SemanticWeb and Natural Language Processing as this would allow to build a great knowledge base and to draw conclusions from it.

This paper surveys the current landscape of tools and state-of-the-art technologies and analyses them with regard to pre-defined requirements that need to be accomplished, in order to be useful for extracting knowledge from the results generated by online polls.

References

  1. S. Amir and H. Ait-Kaci. Cedar: Efficient reasoning for the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology and Internet-Based Systems, pages 157--163. IEEE, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Bekkerman and M. Gavish. High-precision phrase-based document classification on a modern scale. In Proceedings of the KDD. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. T. J. M. Bench-Capon. Knowledge Representation: An Approach to artificial intelligence. Academic Press Ltd, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Berant and P. Liang. Semantic parsing via paraphrasing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1415--1425, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. K. Bollacker, R. Cook, and P. Tufts. Freebase: A shared database of structured general human knowledge. In 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Collobert. Deep learning for efficient discriminative parsing. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Collobert, J. Weston, L. Bottou, M. Karlen, K. Kavukcuoglu, and P. Kuksa. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12: 2493--2537, August 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. Daiber, M. Jakob, c. Hokamp, and P. N. Mendes. Improving efficiency and accuracy in multilingual entity extraction. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Semantic Systems, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Fader, S. Soderland, and O. Etzioni. Identifying relations for open information extraction. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. ACL, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Feldman. Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. In Communications of the ACM, volume 56, pages 82--89, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. R. Finkel, T. Grenager, and C. Manning. Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by gibbs sampling. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 363--370, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Gaizauskas, H. Cunningham, Y. Wilks, P. Rodgers, and K. Humphreys. GATE - an environment to support research and development in natural language engineering. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Gangemi. A comparison of knowledge extraction tools for the semantic web. In The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data, pages 351--366. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Hellmann, J. Lehmann, S. Auer, and M. Brümmer. Integrating NLP using linked data. In The Semantic Web-ISWC, pages 98--113, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. L. Hotz, A. Felfernig, M. Stumptner, A. Ryabokon, C. Bagley, and K. Wolter. Knowledge-Based Configuration, chapter Configuration Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Elsevier Science Inc, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. L. Kallmeyer and W. Maier. Data-driven parsing using probabilistic linear context-free rewriting systems. Computational Linguistics, 39(1):87--119, March 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Kumar, O. Irsoy, J. Su, J. Bradbury, R. English, B. Pierce, P. Ondruska, M. Iyyer, I. Gulrajani, and R. Socher. Ask me anything: Dynamic memory netorks for natural language processing. CoRR, abs/1506.07285, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. B. Liu. Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. D. Manning, M. Surdeanu, J. Bauer, J. Finkel, S. J. Bethard, and D. McClosky. The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 55--60, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. S. Martschat and M. Strube. Recall error analysis for coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2070--2081. ACL, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. P. N. Mendes, M. Jakob, A. Garcia-Silva, and C. Bizer. DBpedia Spotlight: Shedding light on the web of documents. I-Semantics, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Navigli and S. P. Ponzetto. BabelNet: Building a very large multilingual semantic network. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 216--225, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. B. Pang and L. Lee. Optinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and trends in information retrieval, 2(1-2):1--135, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. B. Popov, A. Kiryakov, A. Kirilov, D. Manov, D. Ognyanoff, and M. Goranov. Kim - semantic annotation platform. In The Semantic Web-ISWC, pages 834--849, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. Quercia, H. Askham, and J. Crowcroft. TweetLDA: Supervised topic classification and link prediction in twitter. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, pages 247--250, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Rafferty and C. D. Manning. Parsing three german treebanks: Lexicalized and unlexicalized baselines. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Parsing German at ACL, pages 40--46, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. T. Rubin, A. Chambers, P. Smyth, and M. Steyvers. Statistical topic models for multi-label document classification. Machine Learning, 88(1--2):157--208, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Selway, G. Grossmann, W. Mayer, and M. Stumptner. Formalising natural language specifications using a cognitive linguistic/configuration based approach. Information Systems, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Socher, A. Karpathy, Q. V. Le, C. D. Manning, and A. Y. Ng. Grounded compositional semantics for finding and describing images with sentences. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2: 207--218, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R. Socher, C. C.-Y. Lin, A. Y. Ng, and C. D. Manning. Parsing natural scenes and natural language with recursive neural networks. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. P. Vossen, E. Agirre, N. Calzolari, C. Fellbaum, S.-K. Hsieh, C.-R. Huang, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki, A. Marchetti, M. Monachini, F. Neri, R. Raffaelli, G. Rigau, M. Tescon, and J. VanGent. KYOTO: A system for mining, structuring, and distributing knowledge across languages and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. State of the art in knowledge extraction from online polls: a survey of current technologies

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ACSW '16: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference
        February 2016
        654 pages
        ISBN:9781450340427
        DOI:10.1145/2843043

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 February 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        ACSW '16 Paper Acceptance Rate77of172submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate204of424submissions,48%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader