DOMAIN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN TECHNICAL SOLUTION DOCUMENTS - Discussion of Two Approaches to Improve the Semi-automated Annotation

Helena X. Schmidt, Andreas Kohn, Udo Lindemann

2011

Abstract

The efficient search for existing solutions in mechanical engineering is a key-factor for successful product development. Ontology-based knowledge systems can support the semi-automated annotation of documents about existing solutions and enable the retrieval of those documents. However, the use of different wordings for similar products and a generally heterogeneous domain-specific language hinder the efficient annotation process. In this paper, two approaches to improve the semi-automatic annotation of documents by adding terms to the ontology are described. We evaluate the two approaches by analysing the industry sector-specific and company-specific languages used in documents in the field of mechanical engineering.

References

  1. Bohm, M. R. and Stone, R. B. (2009). A Natural Language to Component Term Methodology: Towards a Form based Concept Generation Tool. ASME IDETC 2009. San Diego, USA.
  2. Cheong, H.; Shu, L.; Stone, R. B. (2008). Translating Terms of the Functional Basis into Biologically Meaningful Keywords. In ASME IDETC‚08. Brooklyn, USA.
  3. eCl@ss e.V.(2011). eCl@ss - Das führende Klassifikationssystem. Retrieved May 5, 2011 from http://www.eclass.de.
  4. Evangelisti Allori, P. (2001). Conceptual and genrespecific constraints: How different disciplines select their discoursal features. In: Mayer, F. (ed.): Language for special purposes: perspectives for the new millenium. (pp. 70-79). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
  5. Gaag, A., Kohn, A. and Lindemann, U. (2009). Functionbased Solution Retrieval and Semantic Search in Mechanical Engineering. In ICED'09. Stanford, California, USA.
  6. Grisham, R., Kittrege, R. (1986). Analysing language in restricted domains. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Härtter, E. (1974). Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung für Wirtschafts- und Naturwissenschaftler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
  8. Hepp, M. (2005). A Methodology for Deriving OWL Ontologies from Products and Services Categorization Standards. In ECIS 2005. Regensburg, Germany.
  9. Kittredge, R. I. (2003). Sublanguages and controlled languages. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. (pp. 430-447). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Kohn, A., Peter, G. and Lindemann, U. (2010). The Challenge of Automatically Annotating Solution Documents. In KEOD'10. Valencia, Spain.
  11. Losee, R. and Haas, S. (1995). Sublanguage Terms: Dictionaries, Usage and Automatic Classification. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 519-529.
  12. Petras, V. (2006). Translating Dialects in Search: Mapping between Specialized Languages of Discourse and Documentary Languages. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
  13. Ponn, J., and Lindemann, U. (2008). Konzeptentwicklung und Gestaltung technischer Produkte. (1rst ed.). Berlin: Springer.
  14. Rapid-I GmbH (2011). RapidMiner. Retrieved January 13, 2011 from http://rapid-i.com.
  15. Schmid, H. TreeTagger (2011). Retrieved January 20, 2011 from http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de
  16. Thellefsen, M. (2003). The role of special language in relation to knowledge organization. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 206-212.
  17. Thellefsen, M. (2010). Knowledge Organization, Concepts, Signs: A Semeiotic Framework. PhD Thesis, Royal School of Information and Library Science, Denmark.
  18. UNSPSC (2011). UNSPSC®. Retrieved May 5, 2011 from http://www.unspsc.org/
  19. Vossen, P. (2003). Ontologies. In: Mitkov, R. (Ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. (pp.464-482). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. VDMA Verlag GmbH (2011). Über den VDMA E-Market. Retrieved May 5, 2011 from http://www.vdma-emarket.com/de/ueberEmarket.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Schmidt H., Kohn A. and Lindemann U. (2011). DOMAIN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN TECHNICAL SOLUTION DOCUMENTS - Discussion of Two Approaches to Improve the Semi-automated Annotation . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development - Volume 1: KEOD, (IC3K 2011) ISBN 978-989-8425-80-5, pages 159-166. DOI: 10.5220/0003630301590166


in Bibtex Style

@conference{keod11,
author={Helena X. Schmidt and Andreas Kohn and Udo Lindemann},
title={DOMAIN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN TECHNICAL SOLUTION DOCUMENTS - Discussion of Two Approaches to Improve the Semi-automated Annotation},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development - Volume 1: KEOD, (IC3K 2011)},
year={2011},
pages={159-166},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003630301590166},
isbn={978-989-8425-80-5},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development - Volume 1: KEOD, (IC3K 2011)
TI - DOMAIN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN TECHNICAL SOLUTION DOCUMENTS - Discussion of Two Approaches to Improve the Semi-automated Annotation
SN - 978-989-8425-80-5
AU - Schmidt H.
AU - Kohn A.
AU - Lindemann U.
PY - 2011
SP - 159
EP - 166
DO - 10.5220/0003630301590166