General Architecture for Text Engineering Summer School 2011

I had the opportunity (thanks Katie Atkinson!) to attend the General Architecture for Text Engineering Summer School 2011. The GATE people have really developed this summer school very well. It was well attended (70 participants?) and well structured (three sections and various talks). GATE attacts a good, outgoing, helpful, and diverse group of people. A whole week of GATE and never a dull moment. Geeky, but true. And text analytics seems to be a growing area (at least according to the May 2011 issue of New Scientist, which lists it as one of seven “disruptive” technologies; I’ve always wanted to be bad).
As this was my second time at the GATE summer school, I sat in on the Advanced GATE session. All the slides and all the materials for hands on exercises are available on the GATE Summer School Wiki. In my week, we covered the following:

  • Module 9: Ontologies and Semantic Annotation
    • Introduction to Ontologies
    • GATE Ontology Editor
    • GATE Ontology Annotation Tools for Entities and Relations
    • Automatic Semantic Annotation in GATE
    • Measuring Performance
    • Using the Large Knowledge Base gazetteer (LKB)
  • Module 10: Advanced GATE Applications
    • Customising ANNIE
    • Working with different languages
    • Complex applications
    • Conditional Processing
    • Section-by-section processing
  • Module 11: Machine Learning
    • Machine learning and evaluation concepts
    • Using ML in GATE
    • Engines and algorithms)
    • Entity learning hands-onl session
    • Relation extraction hands-on session
  • Module 12: Opinion Mining
    • Introduction to opinion mining and sentiment analysis
    • Using GATE tools to perform sentiment analysis
    • Machine learning for sentiment analysis hands-on session
    • Future directions for opinion mining
  • Module 13: Semantic Technology and Linked Open Data: Basics, Tools, and Applications
    • Linked Open Data: Introduction of key principles and some key tools (FactForge, LinkedLifeData)
    • Semantic Annotation with Linked Data
    • Semantic Search

By Adam Wyner

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Recent Papers

A couple of more papers which have been accepted at upcoming conferences or workshops. The papers are all downloadable from the links provided.
Arguing with Emotion
Martyn Llloyd-Kelly and Adam Wyner
UMMS July 11, Girona, Spain
The paper at the link is a draft and will be somewhat revised for distribution at the workshop.
Emotions are commonly thought to be beyond the pale of rational analysis, for they are subjective, may vary even with respect to the person experiencing the emotion, and may conflict with rational thought. In this paper, we develop the position that emotions can be the objects of argumentation, which we express by introducing emotion terms in emotional argumentation schemes. Thus, we can argue about whether or not, according to normative standards and available evidence, it is plausible that an individual had a particular emotion. This is particularly salient in legal cases, where decisions can depend on explicit arguments about emotional states.
On the Linguistic Analysis of Argumentation Schemes
Adam Wyner
LAGB September 7-10, Manchester, United Kingdom
This is an accepted abstract of a paper which is as yet to be written.
By Adam Wyner
Distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0

Recent Papers

My colleagues and I have had the papers below accepted for upcoming conferences. The papers are all downloadable from the links provided.
Towards a Structured Online Consultation Tool
Adam Wyner, Katie Atkinson, and Trevor Bench-Capon
ePart August 2011, Deflt, The Netherlands
The Structured Online Consultation tool (SCT) is a component tool in the IMPACT Project which is used to construct and present detailed surveys that solicit feedback from the public concerning issues in public policy. The tool is underwritten by a computational model of argumentation, incorporating fine-grained, interconnected argumentation schemes. While the public responds to easy to understand questions, the answers can be assimilated into a structured framework for analytic purposes, supporting automated reasoning about arguments and counter-arguments.
Multi-agent Based Classifi cation Using Argumentation From Experience
Maya Wardeh, Frans Coenen, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Adam Wyner
PAKDD May 2011, Shenzhen, China
An approach to multi-agent classi fication, using an Argumentation from Experience paradigm is describe, whereby individual agents argue for a given example to be classifi ed with a particular label according to their local data. Arguments are expressed in the form of classi fication rules which are generated dynamically. The advocated argumentation process has been implemented in the PISA multi-agent framework, which is also described. Experiments indicate that the operation of PISA is comparable with other classi fication approaches and that it can be utilised for Ordinal Classifi cation and Imbalanced Class problems.
Note: I was added to this paper to present it at the conference. I’m familiar with the argumentation aspects, but the data-mining is new to me.
Semantic Models for Policy Deliberation
Katie M. Atkinson, Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon, Dan Cartwright and Adam Z. Wyner
ICAIL June 2011, Pittsburgh, USA
Semantic models have received little attention in recent years, much of their role having been taken over by developments in ontologies. Ontologies, however, are static, and so have only a limited role in reasoning about domains in which change matters. In this paper, we focus on the domain of policy deliberation, where policy decisions are designed to change things to realise particular social values. We explore how a particular kind of state transition system can be constructed to serve as a semantic model to support reasoning about alternative policy decisions. The policy making process includes stages that support the construction of a model, which can then be exploited in reasoning. The reasoning itself will be driven by a particular argumentation scheme for practical reasoning, and the ways in which arguments based on this scheme can be attacked and evaluated. The evaluation provides alternative policy positions. The semantics underpin a current web-based implementation, designed to solicit structured feedback on policy proposals.
Towards Formalising Argumentation about Legal Cases
Adam Z. Wyner, Trevor J.M. Bench-Capon, Katie M. Atkinson
ICAIL June 2011, Pittsburgh, USA
In this paper we offer an account of reasoning with legal cases in terms of argumentation schemes. These schemes, and undercutting attacks associated with them, are expressed as defeasible rules of inference that will lend themselves to formalisation within the ASPIC+ framework. We begin by modelling the style of reasoning with cases developed by Aleven and Ashley in the CATO project, which describes cases using factors, and then extend the account to accommodate the dimensions used in Rissland and Ashley’s earlier HYPO project. Some additional scope for argumentation is then identified and formalised.
By Adam Wyner
Distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0