Intensive use of lexicon and Corpus for WSD

[spa] El artículo trata sobre el uso de información lingüística en la Desambiguación Semántica Automática (DSA). Proponemos un método de DSA basado en conocimiento y no supervisado, que requiere sólo un corpus amplio, previamente etiquetado a nivel morfológico, y muy poco conocimiento gramatical. El proceso de DSA se realiza a través de los patrones sintácticos en los que una ocurrencia ambigua aparece, en base a la hipótesis de 'almost one sense per syntactic pattern'. Esta integración nos permite extraer información paradigmática y sintagmática del corpus relacionada con la ocurrencia ambigua. Usamos variantes de la información de EuroWordNet asociada a los sentidos y dos algoritmos de DSA. Presentamos los resultados obtenidos en la aplicación del método sobre la tarea Spanish lexical sample de Senseval-2. La metodología es fácilmente transferible a otras lenguas. [eng] The paper addresses the issue of how to use linguistic information in Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD). We introduce a knowledge-driven and unsupervised WSD method that requires only a large corpus previously tagged with POS and very little grammatical knowledge. The WSD process is performed taking into account the syntactic patterns in which the ambiguous occurrence appears, relaying in the hypothesis of "almost one sense per syntactic pattern". This integration allows us to obtain, from corpora, paradigmatic and syntagmatic information related to the ambiguous occurrence. We also use variants of EWN information for word senses and different WSD algorithms. We report the results obtained when applying the method on the Spanish lexical sample task in Senseval-2. This methodology is easily transportable to other languages

Word sense discovery and disambiguation

The work is based on the assumption that words with similar syntactic usage have similar meaning, which was proposed by Zellig S. Harris (1954,1968). We study his assumption from two aspects: Firstly, different meanings (word senses) of a word should manifest themselves in different usages (contexts), and secondly, similar usages (contexts) should lead to similar meanings (word senses). If we start with the different meanings of a word, we should be able to find distinct contexts for the meanings in text corpora. We separate the meanings by grouping and labeling contexts in an unsupervised or weakly supervised manner (Publication 1, 2 and 3). We are confronted with the question of how best to represent contexts in order to induce effective classifiers of contexts, because differences in context are the only means we have to separate word senses. If we start with words in similar contexts, we should be able to discover similarities in meaning. We can do this monolingually or multilingually. In the monolingual material, we find synonyms and other related words in an unsupervised way (Publication 4). In the multilingual material, we ?nd translations by supervised learning of transliterations (Publication 5). In both the monolingual and multilingual case, we first discover words with similar contexts, i.e., synonym or translation lists. In the monolingual case we also aim at finding structure in the lists by discovering groups of similar words, e.g., synonym sets. In this introduction to the publications of the thesis, we consider the larger background issues of how meaning arises, how it is quantized into word senses, and how it is modeled. We also consider how to define, collect and represent contexts. We discuss how to evaluate the trained context classi?ers and discovered word sense classifications, and ?nally we present the word sense discovery and disambiguation methods of the publications. This work supports Harris' hypothesis by implementing three new methods modeled on his hypothesis. The methods have practical consequences for creating thesauruses and translation dictionaries, e.g., for information retrieval and machine translation purposes. Keywords: Word senses, Context, Evaluation, Word sense disambiguation, Word sense discovery

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO; Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually pe

Acquiring information extraction patterns from unannotated corpora

Information Extraction (IE) can be defined as the task of automatically extracting preespecified kind of information from a text document. The extracted information is encoded in the required format and then can be used, for example, for text summarization or as accurate index to retrieve new documents.The main issue when building IE systems is how to obtain the knowledge needed to identify relevant information in a document. Today, IE systems are commonly based on extraction rules or IE patterns to represent the kind of information to be extracted. Most approaches to IE pattern acquisition require expert human intervention in many steps of the acquisition process. This dissertation presents a novel method for acquiring IE patterns, Essence, that significantly reduces the need for human intervention. The method is based on ELA, a specifically designed learning algorithm for acquiring IE patterns from unannotated corpora.The distinctive features of Essence and ELA are that 1) they permit the automatic acquisition of IE patterns from unrestricted and untagged text representative of the domain, due to 2) their ability to identify regularities around semantically relevant concept-words for the IE task by 3) using non-domain-specific lexical knowledge tools such as WordNet and 4) restricting the human intervention to defining the task, and validating and typifying the set of IE patterns obtained.Since Essence does not require a corpus annotated with the type of information to be extracted and it does makes use of a general purpose ontology and widely applied syntactic tools, it reduces the expert effort required to build an IE system and therefore also reduces the effort of porting the method to any domain.In order to Essence be validated we conducted a set of experiments to test the performance of the method. We used Essence to generate IE patterns for a MUC-like task. Nevertheless, the evaluation procedure for MUC competitions does not provide a sound evaluation of IE systems, especially of learning systems. For this reason, we conducted an exhaustive set of experiments to further test the abilities of Essence.The results of these experiments indicate that the proposed method is able to learn effective IE patterns

Bootstrapping named entity resources for adaptive question answering systems

Los Sistemas de Búsqueda de Respuestas (SBR) amplían las capacidades de un buscador de información tradicional con la capacidad de encontrar respuestas precisas a las preguntas del usuario. El objetivo principal es facilitar el acceso a la información y disminuir el tiempo y el esfuerzo que el usuario debe emplear para encontrar una información concreta en una lista de documentos relevantes. En esta investigación se han abordado dos trabajos relacionados con los SBR. La primera parte presenta una arquitectura para SBR en castellano basada en la combinación y adaptación de diferentes técnicas de Recuperación y de Extracción de Información. Esta arquitectura está integrada por tres módulos principales que incluyen el análisis de la pregunta, la recuperación de pasajes relevantes y la extracción y selección de respuestas. En ella se ha prestado especial atención al tratamiento de las Entidades Nombradas puesto que, con frecuencia, son el tema de las preguntas o son buenas candidatas como respuestas. La propuesta se ha encarnado en el SBR del grupo MIRACLE que ha sido evaluado de forma independiente durante varias ediciones en la tarea compartida CLEF@QA, parte del foro de evaluación competitiva Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Se describen aquí las participaciones y los resultados obtenidos entre 2004 y 2007. El SBR de MIRACLE ha obtenido resultados moderados en el desempeño de la tarea con tasas de respuestas correctas entre el 20% y el 30%. Entre los resultados obtenidos destacan los de la tarea principal de 2005 y la tarea piloto de Búsqueda de Respuestas en tiempo real de 2006, RealTimeQA. Esta última tarea, además de requerir respuestas correctas incluía el tiempo de respuesta como un factor adicional en la evaluación. Estos resultados respaldan la validez de la arquitectura propuesta como una alternativa viable para los SBR sobre colecciones textuales y también corrobora resultados similares para el inglés y otras lenguas. Por otro lado, el análisis de los resultados a lo largo de las diferentes ediciones de CLEF así como la comparación con otros SBR apunta nuevos problemas y retos. Según nuestra experiencia, los sistemas de QA son más complicados de adaptar a otros dominios y lenguas que los sistemas de Recuperación de Información. Este problema viene heredado del uso de herramientas complejas de análisis de lenguaje como analizadores morfológicos, sintácticos y semánticos. Entre estos últimos se cuentan las herramientas para el Reconocimiento y Clasificación de Entidades Nombradas (NERC en inglés) así como para la Detección y Clasificación de Relaciones (RDC en inglés). Debido a la di cultad de adaptación del SBR a distintos dominios y colecciones, en la segunda parte de esta tesis se investiga una propuesta diferente basada en la adquisición de conocimiento mediante métodos de aprendizaje ligeramente supervisado. El objetivo de esta investigación es adquirir recursos semánticos útiles para las tareas de NERC y RDC usando colecciones de textos no anotados. Además, se trata de eliminar la dependencia de herramientas de análisis lingüístico con el fin de facilitar que las técnicas sean portables a diferentes dominios e idiomas. En primer lugar, se ha realizado un estudio de diferentes algoritmos para NERC y RDC de forma semisupervisada a partir de unos pocos ejemplos (bootstrapping). Este trabajo propone primero una arquitectura común y compara diferentes funciones que se han usado en la evaluación y selección de resultados intermedios, tanto instancias como patrones. La principal propuesta es un nuevo algoritmo que permite la adquisición simultánea e iterativa de instancias y patrones asociados a una relación. Incluye también la posibilidad de adquirir varias relaciones de forma simultánea y mediante el uso de la hipótesis de exclusividad obtener mejores resultados. Como característica distintiva el algoritmo explora la colección de textos con una estrategia basada en indización, que permite adquirir conocimiento de grandes colecciones. La estrategia de selección de candidatos y la evaluación se basan en la construcción de un grafo de instancias y patrones, que justifica nuestro método para la selección de candidatos. Este procedimiento es semejante al frente de exploración de una araña web y permite encontrar las instancias más parecidas a las semillas con las evidencias disponibles. Este algoritmo se ha implementado en el sistema SPINDEL y para su evaluación se ha comenzado con el caso concreto de la adquisición de recursos para las clases de Entidades Nombradas más comunes, Persona, Lugar y Organización. El objetivo es adquirir nombres asociados a cada una de las categorías así como patrones contextuales que permitan detectar menciones asociadas a una clase. Se presentan resultados para la adquisición de dos idiomas distintos, castellano e inglés, y para el castellano, en dos dominios diferentes, noticias y textos de una enciclopedia colaborativa, Wikipedia. En ambos casos el uso de herramientas de análisis lingüístico se ha limitado de acuerdo con el objetivo de avanzar hacia la independencia de idioma. Las listas adquiridas mediante bootstrapping parten de menos de 40 semillas por clase y obtienen del orden de 30.000 instancias de calidad variable. Además se obtienen listas de patrones indicativos asociados a cada clase de entidad. La evaluación indirecta confirma la utilidad de ambos recursos en la clasificación de Entidades Nombradas usando un enfoque simple basado únicamente en diccionarios. La mejor configuración obtiene para la clasificación en castellano una medida F de 67,17 y para inglés de 55,99. Además se confirma la utilidad de los patrones adquiridos que en ambos casos ayudan a mejorar la cobertura. El módulo requiere menor esfuerzo de desarrollo que los enfoques supervisados, si incluimos la necesidad de anotación, aunque su rendimiento es inferior por el momento. En definitiva, esta investigación constituye un primer paso hacia el desarrollo de aplicaciones semánticas como los SBR que requieran menos esfuerzo de adaptación a un dominio o lenguaje nuevo.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Question Answering (QA) systems add new capabilities to traditional search engines with the ability to find precise answers to user questions. Their objective is to enable easier information access by reducing the time and effort that the user requires to find a concrete information among a list of relevant documents. In this thesis we have carried out two works related with QA systems. The first part introduces an architecture for QA systems for Spanish which is based on the combination and adaptation of different techniques from Information Retrieval (IR) and Information Extraction (IE). This architecture is composed by three modules that include question analysis, relevant passage retrieval and answer extraction and selection. The appropriate processing of Named Entities (NE) has received special attention because of their importance as question themes and candidate answers. The proposed architecture has been implemented as part of the MIRACLE QA system. This system has taken part in independent evaluations like the CLEF@QA track in the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). Results from 2004 to 2007 campaigns as well as the details and the evolution of the system have been described in deep. The MIRACLE QA system has obtained moderate performance with a first answer accuracy ranging between 20% and 30%. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight the results obtained in the 2005 main QA task and the RealTimeQA pilot task in 2006. The last one included response time as an important additional variable of the evaluation. These results back the proposed architecture as an option for QA from textual collection and confirm similar findings obtained for English and other languages. On the other hand, the analysis of the results along evaluation campaigns and the comparison with other QA systems point problems with current systems and new challenges. According to our experience, it is more dificult to tailor QA systems to different domains and languages than IR systems. The problem is inherited by the use of complex language analysis tools like POS taggers, parsers and other semantic analyzers, like NE Recognition and Classification (NERC) and Relation Detection and Characterization (RDC) tools. The second part of this thesis tackles this problem and proposes a different approach to adapting QA systems for di erent languages and collections. The proposal focuses on acquiring knowledge for the semantic analyzers based on lightly supervised approaches. The goal is to obtain useful resources that help to perform NERC or RDC using as few annotated resources as possible. Besides, we try to avoid dependencies from other language analysis tools with the purpose that these methods apply to different languages and domains. First of all, we have study previous work on building NERC and RDC modules with few supervision, particularly bootstrapping methods. We propose a common framework for different bootstrapping systems that help to unify different evaluation functions for intermediate results. The main proposal is a new algorithm that is able to simultaneously acquire instances and patterns associated to a relation of interest. It also uses mutual exclusion among relations to reduce concept drift and achieve better results. A distinctive characteristic is that it uses a query based exploration strategy of the text collection which enables their use for larger collections. Candidate selection and evaluation are based on incrementally building a graph of instances and patterns which also justifies our evaluation function. The discovery approach is analogous to the front of exploration in a web crawler and it is able to find the most similar instances to the available seeds. This algorithm has been implemented in the SPINDEL system. We have selected for evaluation the task of acquiring resources for the most common NE classes, Person, Location and Organization. The objective is to acquire name instances that belong to any of the classes as well as contextual patterns that help to detect mentions of NE that belong to that class. We present results for the acquisition of resources from raw text from two different languages, Spanish and English. We also performed experiments for Spanish in two different collections, news and texts from a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Both cases are tackled with limited language analysis tools and resources. With an initial list of 40 instance seeds, the bootstrapping process is able to acquire large name lists containing up to 30.000 instances with a variable quality. Besides, large lists of indicative patterns are obtained too. Our indirect evaluation confirms the utility of both resources to classify NE using a simple dictionary recognition approach. Best results for Spanish obtained a F-score of 67,17 and for English this value is 55,99. The module requires much less development effort than annotation for supervised algorithms although the performance is not in pair yet. This research is a first step towards the development of semantic applications like QA for a new language or domain with no annotated corpora that requires less adaptation effort