SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM)
The current way of representing semantics or meaning in a sentence is by using the conceptual graphs. Conceptual graphs defi ne concepts and conceptual relations loosely. This causes ambiguity because a word can be classified as a concept or relation. Ambiguity disrupts the process of recognizing gr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
UUM Press
2009-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of ICT |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jict/article/view/8087 |
| _version_ | 1811314692228907008 |
|---|---|
| author | Rusli Abdullah Mohd Hasan Selamat Hamidah Ibrahim Ungku Azmi Ungku Chulan Nurul Amelina Nasharuddin Jamaliah Abdul Hamid |
| author_facet | Rusli Abdullah Mohd Hasan Selamat Hamidah Ibrahim Ungku Azmi Ungku Chulan Nurul Amelina Nasharuddin Jamaliah Abdul Hamid |
| author_sort | Rusli Abdullah |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The current way of representing semantics or meaning in a sentence is by using the conceptual graphs. Conceptual graphs defi ne concepts and conceptual relations loosely. This causes ambiguity because a word can be classified as a concept or relation. Ambiguity disrupts the process of recognizing graphs similarity, rendering difficulty to multiple graphs interaction. Relational flow is also altered in conceptual graphs when additional linguistic information is input. Inconsistency of relational flow is caused by the bipartite structure of conceptual graphs that only allows the representation of connection between concept and relations but never between relations per se. To overcome the problem of ambiguity, the concept relational model (CRM) described in this article strictly organizes word classes into three main categories; concept, relation and attribute. To do so, CRM begins by tagging the words in text and proceeds by classifying them according to a predefined mapping. In addition, CRM maintains the consistency of the relational flow by allowing connection between multiple relations as well. CRM then uses a set of canonical graphs to be worked on these newly classified components for the representation of semantics. The overall result is better.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T11:16:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ca49bcf737bf44dda6a84d052405e576 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1675-414X 2180-3862 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T11:16:59Z |
| publishDate | 2009-03-01 |
| publisher | UUM Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of ICT |
| spelling | doaj.art-ca49bcf737bf44dda6a84d052405e5762022-12-22T02:48:57ZengUUM PressJournal of ICT1675-414X2180-38622009-03-018SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM)Rusli Abdullah0Mohd Hasan Selamat1Hamidah Ibrahim2Ungku Azmi Ungku Chulan3Nurul Amelina Nasharuddin4Jamaliah Abdul Hamid5Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra MalaysiaFaculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra MalaysiaFaculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra MalaysiaFaculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra MalaysiaFaculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra MalaysiaFaculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra MalaysiaThe current way of representing semantics or meaning in a sentence is by using the conceptual graphs. Conceptual graphs defi ne concepts and conceptual relations loosely. This causes ambiguity because a word can be classified as a concept or relation. Ambiguity disrupts the process of recognizing graphs similarity, rendering difficulty to multiple graphs interaction. Relational flow is also altered in conceptual graphs when additional linguistic information is input. Inconsistency of relational flow is caused by the bipartite structure of conceptual graphs that only allows the representation of connection between concept and relations but never between relations per se. To overcome the problem of ambiguity, the concept relational model (CRM) described in this article strictly organizes word classes into three main categories; concept, relation and attribute. To do so, CRM begins by tagging the words in text and proceeds by classifying them according to a predefined mapping. In addition, CRM maintains the consistency of the relational flow by allowing connection between multiple relations as well. CRM then uses a set of canonical graphs to be worked on these newly classified components for the representation of semantics. The overall result is better. https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jict/article/view/8087Conceptual graphConcept relational modelLanguage modelsSemantic networkSemantic representationNatural language processing |
| spellingShingle | Rusli Abdullah Mohd Hasan Selamat Hamidah Ibrahim Ungku Azmi Ungku Chulan Nurul Amelina Nasharuddin Jamaliah Abdul Hamid SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM) Journal of ICT Conceptual graph Concept relational model Language models Semantic network Semantic representation Natural language processing |
| title | SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM) |
| title_full | SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM) |
| title_fullStr | SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM) |
| title_full_unstemmed | SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM) |
| title_short | SEMANTICS REPRESENTATION IN A SENTENCE WITH CONCEPT RELATIONAL MODEL (CRM) |
| title_sort | semantics representation in a sentence with concept relational model crm |
| topic | Conceptual graph Concept relational model Language models Semantic network Semantic representation Natural language processing |
| url | https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jict/article/view/8087 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rusliabdullah semanticsrepresentationinasentencewithconceptrelationalmodelcrm AT mohdhasanselamat semanticsrepresentationinasentencewithconceptrelationalmodelcrm AT hamidahibrahim semanticsrepresentationinasentencewithconceptrelationalmodelcrm AT ungkuazmiungkuchulan semanticsrepresentationinasentencewithconceptrelationalmodelcrm AT nurulamelinanasharuddin semanticsrepresentationinasentencewithconceptrelationalmodelcrm AT jamaliahabdulhamid semanticsrepresentationinasentencewithconceptrelationalmodelcrm |