Semantics Representation in a Sentence with Concept Relational Model (CRM)

Authors

  • Rusli Abdullah Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Mohd Hasan Selamat Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Hamidah Ibrahim Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Ungku Azmi Ungku Chulan Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Nurul Amelina Nasharuddin Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Jamaliah Abdul Hamid Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/jict2009.8.5

Keywords:

Conceptual graph, Concept relational model, Language models, Semantic network, Semantic representation, Natural language processing

Abstract

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.

 

References

Berland, M., & Charniak, E. (1999). Finding parts in very large corpora. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association For Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics. Annual Meeting of the ACL. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, (pp. 57-64). //ict.wum.edu.my/ http Journal of ICT, 8, pp: 55-

Brachman, R. (1977). What’s a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. Jnternational Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(2), 157-152.

Chein, M., & Mugnier, M. L. (2008). Graph-based knowledge representation: Computational foundations of conceptual graphs (Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing). Springer-Verlag.

Girju, R., & Moldovan, D.I. (2002). Text mining for causal relations. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Research Society Conference (FLAIR), (pp. 360-364). Florida, USA.

Hearst, M.A. (1992). Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, (pp. 539-545). Nantes, France. M. Montes y Gomez, A. Gelbukh, A. Lopez Lopez, Ricardo Baeza-Yates. Flexible comparison of conceptual graphs. In: Mayr, H.C., Lazansky, J.,

Quirchmayr, G., Vogel, P. (Eds.), Proc. DEXA-2001, 12th International Conference and Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, N 2113, Springer-Verlag, (pp. 102-111).

Montes-y-Gomez, M., Gelbukh, A., & Lopez-Lopez, A. (2002). Text mining at detail level using conceptual graphs. In / 0th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, CCS 2002. Borovets, Bulgaria.

Reinberger, M.-L., Spyns, P., Pretorius, A., & Daelemans, W. (2004). Automatic initiation of an ontology. In R. Meersman et al. (Eds.), On the move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2004: CooPIS, DOA and ODBASE (Part I), LNCS (Vol. 3290, pp. 600-617). Springer-Verlag.

Roberts, A. (2005). Learning parts and wholes from biomedical texts. In Proceedings of the 8th Research Colloquium of the UK special-interest group in Computational Linguistics (CLUK-05), (pp. 63-70). Manchester, UK.

Siddharthan, A. (2002). An architecture for a text simplification system. In Proceedings of the Language Engineering Conference 2002 (LEC 2002), (pp. 64-71). Hyderabad, India.

Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual structures: Information processing in mind and machine. Addison Wesley. //ict.wum.edu.my/ http Journal of ICT, 8, pp: 55-

Sowa, J. F. (1992). Conceptual graphs summary. In P. Eklund, T. Nagle, J. Nagle, and L. Gerholz, (Eds.) Conceptual structures: Current research and practice, (pp. 3-52). Ellis Horwood.

Sowa, J. F. (2000). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical and computational foundations. Brooks/Cole: Thomson Learning.

Sowa, J. F., & Way, E. C. (1986). Implementing a semantic interpreter using conceptual graphs. JBM Journal of Research and Development, 30(1), 57.

Zou, Q., & Chu, W. (2003). IndexFinder: A knowledge-based method for indexing clinical texts. In Proceedings of American Medical International Association (AMIA) Annual Symposium 2003, (pp. 763-767). Washington D.C, USA. Au npewinn'yoll//:dyy

Downloads

Published

31-03-2009

Issue

Vol. 8 (2009): Journal of Information and Communication Technology (JICT) Vol. 8, 2009

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Abdullah, R., Selamat, M. H., Ibrahim, H., Ungku Chulan, U. A., Nasharuddin, N. A., & Abdul Hamid, J. (2009). Semantics Representation in a Sentence with Concept Relational Model (CRM). Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 8, 55-65. https://doi.org/10.32890/jict2009.8.5

Research impact

Harvested 2026-09-06
5 citations, from OpenAlex — the highest of the sources checked

Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.

Identifiers DOI 10.32890/jict2009.8.5 OpenAlex W1598189627

Most read articles by the same author(s)