Ontologies and Information Extraction

This report argues that, even in the simplest cases, IE is an ontology-driven process. It is not a mere text filtering method based on simple pattern matching and keywords, because the extracted pieces of texts are interpreted with respect to a predefined partial domain model. This report shows that depending on the nature and the depth of the interpretation to be done for extracting the information, more or less knowledge must be involved. This report is mainly illustrated in biology, a domain in which there are critical needs for content-based exploration of the scientific literature and which becomes a major application domain for IE

Computer-assisted text analysis methodology in the social sciences

"This report presents an account of methods of research in computer-assisted text analysis in the social sciences. Rather than to provide a comprehensive enumeration of all computer-assisted text analysis investigations either directly or indirectly related to the social sciences using a quantitative and computer-assisted methodology as their text analytical tool, the aim of this report is to describe the current methodological standpoint of computer-assisted text analysis in the social sciences. This report provides, thus, a description and a discussion of the operations carried out in computer-assisted text analysis investigations. The report examines both past and well-established as well as some of the current approaches in the field and describes the techniques and the procedures involved. By this means, a first attempt is made toward cataloguing the kinds of supplementary information as well as computational support which are further required to expand the suitability and applicability of the method for the variety of text analysis goals." (author's abstract

Evolutionary Subject Tagging in the Humanities; Supporting Discovery and Examination in Digital Cultural Landscapes

In this paper, the authors attempt to identify problematic issues for subject tagging in the humanities, particularly those associated with information objects in digital formats. In the third major section, the authors identify a number of assumptions that lie behind the current practice of subject classification that we think should be challenged. We move then to propose features of classification systems that could increase their effectiveness. These emerged as recurrent themes in many of the conversations with scholars, consultants, and colleagues. Finally, we suggest next steps that we believe will help scholars and librarians develop better subject classification systems to support research in the humanities.NEH Office of Digital Humanities: Digital Humanities Start-Up Grant (HD-51166-10