Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 19, No. 228.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu
[1] From: "Jana Sukkarieh" <jana.sukkarieh_at_clg.ox.ac.uk> (71)
Subject: Announcement and CFP: Natural Language and Knowledge
Representation
[2] From: "Jack Boeve" <JBoeve_at_umuc.edu> (55)
Subject: 2005-2006 Intellectual Property in Academia Online
Workshop Series (lists)
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:15:02 +0100
From: "Jana Sukkarieh" <jana.sukkarieh_at_clg.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Announcement and CFP: Natural Language and
Knowledge Representation
[Apologies for x-postings]
NATURAL LANGUAGE AND KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION (NL-KR)
Special Track at FLAIRS 2006
ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS
Holiday Inn Melbourne Oceanfront, Melbourne Beach, FLORIDA, USA
MAIN CONFERENCE: 11-12-13 MAY 2006
Special track web page: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lady0641/Flairs06_NL_KR
Main conference web page: http://www.indiana.edu/~flairs06
PURPOSE OF THE NL-KR TRACK
We believe the Natural Language Processing (NLP) and the Knowledge
Representation (KR) communities have common goals. They are both concerned
with representing knowledge and with reasoning, since the best test for the
semantic capability of an NLP system is performing reasoning tasks. Having
these two essential common grounds, the two communities ought to have been
collaborating, to provide a well-suited representation language that covers
these grounds. However, the two communities also have difficult-to-meet
concerns. Mainly, the semantic representation (SR) should be expressive
enough and should take the information in context into account, while the KR
should be equipped with a fast reasoning process.
The main objection against an SR or a KR is that they need experts
to be understood. Non-experts communicate (usually) via a natural language
(NL), and more or less they understand each other while performing a lot of
reasoning. An essential practical value of representations is their attempt
to be transparent. This will particularly be useful when/if the system
provides a justification for a user or a knowledge engineer on its line of
reasoning using the underlying KR (i.e. without generating back to NL).
We all seem to believe that, compared to Natural Language, the existing
Knowledge Representation and reasoning systems are poor. Nevertheless, for a
long time, the KR community dismissed the idea that NL can be a KR. That's
because NL can be very ambiguous and there are syntactic and semantic
processing complexities associated with it. However, researchers in both
communities have started looking at this issue again. Possibly, it has to do
with the NLP community making some progress in terms of processing and
handling ambiguity, the KR community realising that a lot of knowledge is
already 'coded' in NL and that one should reconsider the way they handle
expressivity and ambiguity.
This track is an attempt to provide a forum for discussion on this
front and to bridge a gap between NLP and KR. A KR in this track has a
well-defined syntax, semantics and a proof theory. It should be clear what
authors mean by NL-like, based on NL or benefiting from NL (if they are
using one). It does not have to be a novel representation.
NL-KR TRACK TOPICS
For this track, we will invite submissions including, but not limited to:
a. A novel NL-like KR or building on an existing one
b. Reasoning systems that benefit from properties of NL to reason with NL
c. Semantic representation used as a KR : compromise between expressivity
and efficiency?
d. More Expressive KR for NL understanding (Any compromise?)
e. Any work exploring how existing representations fall short of
addressing some problems involved in modelling, manipulating or reasoning
(whether reasoning as used to get an interpretation for a certain utterance,
exchange of utterances or what utterances follow from other utterances) with
NL documents
f. Representations that show how classical logics are not as efficient,
transparent, expressive or where a one-step application of an inference rule
require more (complex) steps in a classical environment and vice-versa; i.e.
how classical logics are more powerful, etc
g. Building a reasoning test collection for natural language
understanding systems: any kind of reasoning (deductive, abductive, etc);
for a deductive test suite see for e.g. deliverable 16 of the FraCas project
(http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~fracas/). Also, look at textual entailment
challenges 1 and 2
<http://www.pascal-network.org/Challenges/RTE>
h. Comparative results (on a common test suite or a common task) of
different representations or systems that reason with NL (again any kind of
reasoning). The comparison could be either for efficiency, transparency or
expressivity
i. Knowledge acquisition systems or techniques that benefit from
properties of NL to acquire knowledge already 'coded' in NL
j. Automated Reasoning, Theorem Proving and KR communities views on all
this
[...]
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:15:48 +0100
From: "Jack Boeve" <JBoeve_at_umuc.edu>
Subject: 2005-2006 Intellectual Property in Academia Online
Workshop Series (lists)
2005-2006 Intellectual Property in Academia Online Workshop
Series.
The Center for Intellectual Property at the University of Maryland
University College is pleased to host its annual asynchronous online
workshop series for faculty, university counsel, librarians,
instructional design and information professionals.
This year's exciting lineup includes four outstanding workshops:
E-Reserves and Copyright
http://www.umuc/edu/cip/ipa/workshops.html#ereserves
October 17-October 28, 2005
Moderated by Laura (Lolly) Gasaway, Esq.
Professor of Law and Director, Law Library, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the University Campus: A
Safe Harbor?
http://www.umuc/edu/cip/ipa/workshops.html#dmca
November 7-November 18, 2005
Moderated by Arnold Lutzker, Esq.
Senior Partner, Lutzker, Lutzker & Settlemyer, LLP
DRM in Higher Education
http://www.umuc/edu/cip/ipa/workshops.html#drm
January 23 - February 3, 2006
Moderated by Kimberly Kelley, Ph.D., and by Clifford Lynch, Ph.D.
Dr. Kelley is Associate Provost, Information and Library Services,
and Executive Director of the Center for Intellectual Property,
University of Maryland University College.
Dr. Lynch is Executive Director of the Coalition for Networked
Information and the 2004-2006 Intellectual Property Scholar at the
Center for Intellectual Property.
Copyright and Academic Culture
http://www.umuc/edu/cip/ipa/workshops.html#copyright
February 20 - March 3, 2006
Moderated by Siva Vaidhyanathan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Culture and Communication at New York
University.
WORKSHOP FORMAT: Each online workshop will last approximately two weeks,
providing the participants with an in-depth understanding of core
intellectual property issues facing higher education. They will include
course readings, chats and online discussions. Participants will receive
daily response and feedback from the workshop moderators. Please visit
the web site for all course objectives:
http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ipa/workshops.html
REGISTRATION:
Register early since space is limited and in order to get the best
discounts. Early registration is just $125 each (regularly $150 each);
two workshops $225; three workshops $350; four workshops for only $400!
A significant discount is given for full time graduate students until
places are filled; please consult the website for details.
To register online, visit
https://nighthawk.umuc.edu/CIPReg.nsf/Application?OpenForm.
For additional information call 240-582-2965 or visit our web site at
http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ipa
--Jack Boeve
Center for Intellectual Property
University of Maryland University College
http://www.umuc.edu/cip
Received on Fri Aug 26 2005 - 01:32:33 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 01:32:35 EDT