Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KnowledgeRepresentation
for Syntactic/Semantic
Processing
Robert J. Bobrow
Bolt Beranekand Newman Inc.
50 Moulton St.
Cambridge,Mass. 02238
Bonnie L. Webber
Departmentof ComputerScience
The Moore Schoolof ElelectricalEngineeringD2
Universityof Pennsylvania
Philadelphia,Pa. 19104
Because RUS provides a very clean interface
between syntacticand semantic processing,it has
been possible to experiment with a variety of
knowledge representations in
different
the
implementationsnoted above. The most recent such
implementationuses the KL-ONE formalism c31,
to represent the knowledge needed for
[41,
incrementalprocessing. (This implementationhas
been dubbed PSI-KLONE, for "Earsing and Semantic
InterpretatioGsmL-ONE1l.)
KL-ONE is a uniform
Ebject-centeredrepresentationalscheme based on
the idea of
structured inheritance in a
lattice-structured
taxonomy of generic knowledge.
As we shall discuss iater,- PSI-KLONE takes
advantageof KL-ONE'staxonomiclattice [ill which
ccmbines the propertiesof an inheritancenetwork
with those of-a discrimination
net.
1. Introduction
This paper discusses some theoretical
implications of recasting parsing and semantic
interpretation
as a type of inferenceprocesswhich
we call incrementalhescription refinement.*It
draws upon our recent experience with RUS. a
frameworkfor naturallanguageprocessingdeveloped
at BBN and in use in several different natural
language systems across the country (for details
see [II, C21 and C71>. RUS is a very practical
system that is as efficientas a semanticgrammar
like the SOPHIE parser 161 and as flexible and
extensible
modular syntactic/semantic
processor lik? LUiAR CIOI.
It achieves this
ccmbination of efficiency and flexibility by
cascading Cl21 syntacticand semanticprocessingproducingthe semantic interpretationof an input
utteranceincremental1
y during the parsingprocess,
and using it to guide the operationof the parser.
316
317
efficiency by
rejecting constituent label
assigrments which have no hope of semantic
interpretation,
while deferringthe constructionof
syntactic
an
interpretation until
the
well-formedness
of the entire phrase is verified.
I
318
3. IncrementalDescriptionRefinement
319
1.
of descriptions
4. which sub-categorizations
are exhaustive- i.e., at least one of
the sub-categories
appliesto anythingto
which the more general description
applies.
Wr analysis of the assumptionsimplicit in
the current implementation
of PSI-KLONEhas led us
to an understandingof the importanceof these four
points in a IDR. By making these four points
explicitin the next implementation
we expect to be
able to deal with a larger class of phenomenathan
the current system handles. In the following
sectionswe illustratethese four points in terms
of the behaviorof the currentversionof PSI-KLONE
and the improvementswe expect to be able to make
320
of
types
of
3.
4.1. CriterialityConditions
The point here is an obvious one, but bears
repeating. If a taxonomy is to be used for
recognition,then there must be some way, based on
partialevidence,to get into it at the right place
for the recognition(IDR) process to begin. That
is, for any ultimatelyrecognizablephrase there
must be at least one criteria1 condition,i.e. a
collectionof facts which is sufficientto ensure
the abnlicabilitvof some particulardescris
In the'syntactic"/semantic
taxonomy, the criteria1
conditionis often, for a phrase,the propertiesof
belongingto a particularsyntacticcategory(e.g.,
noun phrase,clause, etc.) and having a particular
lexical item as head. Recallingthe example given
in Section2.2, the evidencethat the input had the
shape of a CLAUSE and had the verb llrunVas its
head constitutedsufficientconditionsto enter the
taxonomy at the node RunCLAUSE - i.e., a
specializationof CLAUSE whose head is filled by
the verb "run". Without the notion of criteria1
properties,we cannot ensure the applicabilityof
any description and therefore have no way of
continuingthe recognitionprocess.
that functionalrole
the interpretation
of that constituent
o other syntactic/semanticproperties of
that phrase and its constituents.
With respectto the first of these points,one
effective way of representing the compatibility
restrictions between syntactic and semantic
relations derives from the fact that each purely
syntacticrelationcan be viewed as an abstraction
of the syntacticpropertiessharedby some class of
semantic relations (i.e., that they have
syntactically
identicalargunents). If
1.
2. possiblesyntacticand semanticrelations
are representedtherein as "slots" in a
frame,and
Explicitcompatibility/incompatibility
annotations
As noted above, the semanticinterpretermust
be able to decide if the interpretation
assignedto
the already parsed constituentis compatiblewith
the type restrictions on the argLPnentsof a
semanticrelation. For example,the PP "on Sunday"
can be a PP-modifierof an NP whose Head is "party"
if it isccmpatible with being either a time-PP,
and hence capable of instantiatingthe relation
time-PP-modifier,or a location-PP and hencs
instaziating the relation location-PP-modifier.
ies for formalizing
There are two plausiblestrateg
the somewhatinformalnotion of compatibility:
321
1.
2. it
is
compatible if
its
3-&W
interpretation does
not
guarantee
-inconsistency.
Considerthe problem of rejecting"on Sunday"
as a location-PP-modifier.Conceivablyone could
reject it on thegrounds that "Sunday"doesn'thave
a syntactic/semantic
shape that guaranteesthat it
is a location-NP. This is essentiallythe strategy
followedby the currentversionof PSI-KLONE. More
specifically,the PSI-KLONEsystem searches along
the superC cables of a constituentto find just
those semanticrelationswhich are guaranteedto be
canpatible with the interpretation of the
constituentand matrix.
However, that strategy would have to reject
"birthday present" as being compatible with
apparel-NP (thereby rejecting "Mary wore her
birthdaypresentto New York"),vehicle-NP(thereby
rejecting "Mary drove her birthday present from
Boston to Philadelphia"), animate-NP (thereby
rejecting "Mary fed her birthday present some
Little Friskies"), etc. Thus, we believe that
future systems should incorporate the second
strategy, at least as a fall-back when no
interpretation is found using only the first
strategy. This strategyalso makes it easier for
the system to handle pronouns and other
semantically empty NPs (e.g. "thing" "stuff"
etc.) whose syntactic/semanticshapes'guarantei
almost nothing,but which are compatiblewith many
semanticinterpretations.
The imp1ication here for both language
processingand knowledgereprmesentation
is that:
1.
incompatibility
must be marked explicitly
in the representation,
and
322
operates.
current
system
the
PSI-KLONE
Unfortunately,there are other uses of KL-ONE in
the natural language system in which concepts are
subcategorizedbut it is clear that an exhaustive
If the
subcategorizationhas not been made.
meaning of the links in the representationscheme
is to be well-defined,it must be possible to
non-exhaustive
distinguish exhaustive from
sub-categorization. The implication for both
knowledgerepresentation
and inferenceis that some
clear stand must be taken vis-a-vis the
representation
of exhaustivesub-categorizations.
REFERENCES
[II
PI
L-31
5. Conclusion
The approach we have taken in RUS is midway
betweencompletelydecoupledsyntacticand semantic
processingand the totally merged processingthat
is characteristicof semantic grammars. RUS has
already proven the robustnessof this approach in
several different systems, each using different
knowledge representation techniques for the
semantic ccmponent.
The RUS grammar is a
substantialand general grammar for English,more
extensive than the grammar in the LUNAR system
Althoughthe grammar is representedas an
ClOl.
ATN, we have been able to greatly reduce the
backtrackingthat normallyoccurs in the operation
of an ATN parser, allowing RUS to approach the
performanceof a "deterministic"
parser [21. With
the aid of a "grammarcompiler" [51 this makes it
possibleto achieve parsing times on the order of
.X CPU seconds, on a DEC KLIO, for twenty word
sentences.
[41
[51
Ii61
Inc., May,
c71
[81
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cur work on the PSI-KLONEsystem has not been done
in vacua - our colleaguesin this researcheffort
includeEd Barton, Madeleine Bates, Ron Bra&-man,
Phil Cohen, David Israel, Hector Levesque, Candy
Sidnerand Bill Woods. We hope this paper reflects
well on our joint effort.
The authors wish to thank Madeleine Bates,
Danny Bobrow, Ron Bra&man, David Israel, Candy
Sidner, Brian Smith, and Dave Waltz for their
helpfulcommentson earlierversionsof this paper.
Our specialthanks go to Susan Chase,whose gourmet
feasts and general supportmade the preparationof
this paper much more enjoyable than it might
otherwisehave been.
191
Cl01
Cl11
r121
323
Bobrow, R. J.
The RUS System.
-BBN Repom8,
Bolt Beranekand Newnan
Inc,, 1978. .
Bobrow,R. J. & Webber,B. L.
PSI-KLONE- Parsingand Semantic
Interpretation
in the BBN NaturalLanguage
UnderstandingSystem.
In CSCSI/CSEIOAnnual Conference.
7z?xrim,*1980.
Brachnan,R. J.
On the Epistemological
Statusof Semantic
Networks.
In Findler,NicholasV. (editor),Associative
Networks- The Representationand Use of
Knowledgeinomputers, . AcaGi'Gs,
New York,379.
Bract-man,
R. J.
An Introductionto KL-ONE.
In Bra&man, R.J., et al. (editors),Research
in NaturalLanguageUnderstanding,
Annual
Rep31 Aug. 79), pages
--13;116, Bolt Berzek and NekananInc,
Cambridge,MA, 1980.
Burton, R. & Woods, W. A.
A CompilingSystem for AugmentedTransition
Networks.
In COLING76. Sixth InternationalConference
?%7ZiputationalLinguistics,Ottawa,
Canada,June, 1976.
Burton,R.. Seelv Br0wn.J.
SemanticGrammar:A Techniquefor
ConstrwNa?%ral
LanguazInterfaces
to Instructional
Svstems.
BBNTeport 3587, E!ol-?&%%k And Newnan
1977.