The disclosed embodiments relate generally to analyzing place names extracted in a collection of documents. More particularly, the disclosed embodiments relate to analyzing place names that have been extracted from documents such as web pages.
Place names extracted from different sources have a variety of formats and may contain typographical errors, omissions, or unclear language. There may also be ambiguity as to whether a word represents a place name and whether different place names represent the same location. It is useful to have a way to identify the precise location of a place name.
In accordance with one aspect of the disclosed implementations, a computer-implemented method and computer program product process a text string within an object stored in memory to identify a first potential place name. The method and computer program product determine whether geographic location coordinates are known for the first potential place name. Further, the method and computer program product identify the first potential place name as a place name and tag the identified place name associated with an object in the memory with its geographic location coordinates, when the geographic location coordinates for the first identified place name are known.
In one implementation, a system includes a potential place name identifier to determine if a text string contains a first potential place name. The system also includes a coordinate determiner to determine whether geographic location coordinates are known for the first potential place name. In addition, the system includes a place name identifier to determine whether the first potential place name is a place name and a coordinate assignor to tag the first identified place name associated with an object in the memory with its geographic location coordinates, when the geographic location coordinates for the first identified place name are known.
Embodiments of the present invention are now described with reference to the figures where like reference numbers indicate identical or functionally similar elements.
Document hosts 102 store documents and provide access to documents. A document is comprised of any machine-readable data including any combination of text, graphics, multimedia content, etc. One example of a document is a book (e.g., fiction or nonfiction) in machine-readable form. A document may be encoded in a markup language, such as Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), e.g., a web page, in an interpreted language (e.g., JavaScript) or in any other computer readable or executable format. A document can include one or more hyperlinks to other documents. A typical document will include one or more facts within its content. A document stored in a document host 102 may be located and/or identified by a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), or Web address, or any other appropriate form of identification and/or location. A document host 102 is implemented by a computer system, and typically includes a server adapted to communicate over the network 104 via networking protocols (e.g., TCP/IP), as well as application and presentation protocols (e.g., HTTP, HTML, SOAP, D-HTML, Java). The documents stored by a host 102 are typically held in a file directory, a database, or other data repository. A host 102 can be implemented in any computing device (e.g., from a PDA or personal computer, a workstation, mini-computer, or mainframe, to a cluster or grid of computers), as well as in any processor architecture or operating system.
Janitors 110 operate to process facts extracted by importer 108. This processing can include but is not limited to, data cleansing, object merging, and fact induction. In one embodiment, there are a number of different janitors 110 that perform different types of data management operations on the facts. For example, one janitor 110 may traverse some set of facts in the repository 115 to find duplicate facts (that is, facts that convey the same factual information) and merge them. Another janitor 110 may also normalize facts into standard formats. Another janitor 110 may also remove unwanted facts from repository 115, such as facts related to pornographic content. Other types of janitors 110 may be implemented, depending on the types of data management functions desired, such as translation, compression, spelling or grammar correction, and the like.
Various janitors 110 act on facts to normalize attribute names, and values and delete duplicate and near-duplicate facts so an object does not have redundant information. For example, we might find on one page that Britney Spears' birthday is “12/2/1981” while on another page that her date of birth is “Dec. 2, 1981.” Birthday and Date of Birth might both be rewritten as Birthdate by one janitor and then another janitor might notice that 12/2/1981 and Dec. 2, 1981 are different forms of the same date. It would choose the preferred form, remove the other fact and combine the source lists for the two facts. As a result when you look at the source pages for this fact, on some you'll find an exact match of the fact and on others text that is considered to be synonymous with the fact.
Build engine 112 builds and manages the repository 115. Service engine 114 is an interface for querying the repository 115. Service engine 114's main function is to process queries, score matching objects, and return them to the caller but it is also used by janitor 110.
Repository 115 stores factual information extracted from a plurality of documents that are located on document hosts 102. A document from which a particular fact may be extracted is a source document (or “source”) of that particular fact. In other words, a source of a fact includes that fact (or a synonymous fact) within its contents.
Repository 115 contains one or more facts. In one embodiment, each fact is associated with exactly one object. One implementation for this association includes in each fact an object ID that uniquely identifies the object of the association. In this manner, any text string of facts may be associated with an individual object, by including the object ID for that object in the facts. In one embodiment, objects themselves are not physically stored in the repository 115, but rather are defined by the set or group of facts with the same associated object ID, as described below. Further details about facts in repository 115 are described below, in relation to
It should be appreciated that in practice at least some of the components of the data processing system 106 will be distributed over multiple computers, communicating over a network. For example, repository 115 may be deployed over multiple servers. As another example, the janitors 110 may be located on any text string of different computers. For convenience of explanation, however, the components of the data processing system 106 are discussed as though they were implemented on a single computer.
In another embodiment, some or all of document hosts 102 are located on data processing system 106 instead of being coupled to data processing system 106 by a network. For example, importer 108 may import facts from a database that is a part of or associated with data processing system 106.
As described above, each fact is associated with an object ID 209 that identifies the object that the fact describes. Thus, each fact that is associated with a same entity (such as George Washington), will have the same object ID 209. In one embodiment, objects are not stored as separate data entities in memory. In this embodiment, the facts associated with an object contain the same object ID, but no physical object exists. In another embodiment, objects are stored as data entities in memory, and include references (for example, pointers or IDs) to the facts associated with the object. The logical data structure of a fact can take various forms; in general, a fact is represented by a tuple that includes a fact ID, an attribute, a value, and an object ID. The storage implementation of a fact can be in any underlying physical data structure.
Also, while the illustration of
Each fact 204 also may include one or more metrics 218. A metric provides an indication of the some quality of the fact. In some embodiments, the metrics include a confidence level and an importance level. The confidence level indicates the likelihood that the fact is correct. The importance level indicates the relevance of the fact to the object, compared to other facts for the same object. The importance level may optionally be viewed as a measure of how vital a fact is to an understanding of the entity or concept represented by the object.
Each fact 204 includes a list of one or more sources 220 that include the fact and from which the fact was extracted. Each source may be identified by a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), or Web address, or any other appropriate form of identification and/or location, such as a unique document identifier.
The facts illustrated in
Some embodiments include one or more specialized facts, such as a name fact 207 and a property fact 208. A name fact 207 is a fact that conveys a name for the entity or concept represented by the object ID. A name fact 207 includes an attribute 224 of “name” and a value, which is the name of the object. For example, for an object representing the country Spain, a name fact would have the value “Spain.” A name fact 207, being a special instance of a general fact 204, includes the same fields as any other fact 204; it has an attribute, a value, a fact ID, metrics, sources, etc. The attribute 224 of a name fact 207 indicates that the fact is a name fact, and the value is the actual name. The name may be a string of characters. An object ID may have one or more associated name facts, as many entities or concepts can have more than one name. For example, an object ID representing Spain may have associated name facts conveying the country's common name “Spain” and the official name “Kingdom of Spain.” As another example, an object ID representing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may have associated name facts conveying the agency's acronyms “PTO” and “USPTO” as well as the official name “United States Patent and Trademark Office.” If an object does have more than one associated name fact, one of the name facts may be designated as a primary name and other name facts may be designated as secondary names, either implicitly or explicitly.
A property fact 208 is a fact that conveys a statement about the entity or concept represented by the object ID. Property facts are generally used for summary information about an object. A property fact 208, being a special instance of a general fact 204, also includes the same parameters (such as attribute, value, fact ID, etc.) as other facts 204. The attribute field 226 of a property fact 208 indicates that the fact is a property fact (e.g., attribute is “property”) and the value is a string of text that conveys the statement of interest. For example, for the object ID representing Bill Clinton, the value of a property fact may be the text string “Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.” Some object IDs may have one or more associated property facts while other objects may have no associated property facts. It should be appreciated that the data structures shown in
As described previously, a collection of facts is associated with an object ID of an object. An object may become a null or empty object when facts are disassociated from the object. A null object can arise in a number of different ways. One type of null object is an object that has had all of its facts (including name facts) removed, leaving no facts associated with its object ID. Another type of null object is an object that has all of its associated facts other than name facts removed, leaving only its name fact(s). Alternatively, the object may be a null object only if all of its associated name facts are removed. A null object represents an entity or concept for which the data processing system 106 has no factual information and, as far as the data processing system 106 is concerned, does not exist. In some embodiments, facts of a null object may be left in the repository 115, but have their object ID values cleared (or have their importance to a negative value). However, the facts of the null object are treated as if they were removed from the repository 115. In some other embodiments, facts of null objects are physically removed from repository 115.
According to one embodiment, geopoint janitor 304 determines whether at least one text string listed within source document 302 is a potential place name through the application of various rules 308, as described below with reference to
According to one embodiment, geopoint janitor 304 processes a text string to identify one or more potential place names 410. The text string may contain multiple sentences (e.g. “I love visiting Las Vegas, as long as the trip lasts no longer than 48 hours. Also, it's best if at least two years have elapsed since my last trip.”) The text string may be only a single word (e.g. “Hawaii”).
Geopoint janitor 304 processes a text string to identify a potential place name 410 by examining whether the text string contains sequences of one or more capitalized words. For example, in the text, “I visited the Empire State Building in New York City,” geopoint janitor 304 would examine the sequences, “I”, “Empire State Building” and “New York City.” The capitalized words may be one or more capitalized letters, such as “NY” and “N.Y.” Geopoint Janitor examines the text string to identify a potential place name in accordance with various rules 308, such as eliminating consideration of certain noise words (e.g., The, Moreover, Although, In, However, I, Mr., Ms.) or not considering the first word of a sentence. In the previous example, the first sequence, “I”, would be excluded from consideration based on rules eliminating noise words and/or the first word of a sentence. As another example of a rule 308, geopoint janitor 304 may consider the words preceding and/or following a potential place name. For instance, words after the word “in” in the previous example would be examined because “in” often precedes a place name. Knowledge of what often precedes a place name can be learned through an iterative process. For example, “in” could be learned from the above example if the geopoint janitor 304 already knows that “New York City” is a place.
Turning now to
Further, geopoint janitor 304 could also examine object type in determining whether a text string contains potential place name. In
Moreover, a rule may be created that if the type of an object (such as “China”) is a place and if the attribute name for the text string at issue (associated with that object) is a name, then the text string at issue must contain a place name. This rule may be part of rules 308 (FIG. 3) to be used by Geopoint Janitor 304 in processing text strings to identify a potential place name 410 (
In addition, the geopoint janitor 304 can determine which attributes are likely associated with location values. For example, if an attribute (i.e. Favorite Place) is determined to correspond to a location value more than a specified proportion of the time, geopoint janitor 304 can create a rule that all values associated with such an attribute are locations. For instance, assume the following facts were available:
Country: United States
Country: Russia
Country: UK
Favorite Place: Argentina
Favorite Place: UK
Favorite Place: The White House
In Example 1A, geopoint janitor 304 might not recognize UK as a place name at first. However, after the United States and Russia were both found to be places, geopoint janitor 304 could make the determination that a “Country” attribute is a “place” and therefore determine that the UK is a place. In Example 1B, after the determination has been made that the UK is a place, and Argentina is a place, geopoint janitor 304 could make the determination that a “Favorite Place” attribute would correspond to a “place” value, so “The White House” is also likely to be a place. Geopoint janitor 304 can then use the expanded list of place-related attributes to search for additional place names.
In
Returning now to
The lookup functions described above may yield various results. In one embodiment, a look up yields a place name with a latitude and a longitude. In another embodiment, the lookup results in the determination that the potential place name is in fact a place name, though it does not have location coordinates. Another lookup result is a place name with a bounding area 910 that has a latitude and longitude coordinate range, as shown for example in
When a lookup returns conflicting results, geopoint janitor 304 provides various disambiguation techniques for resolving the differences. In one embodiment, the lookup result that occurs most frequently is the preferred result. For example, if the lookup of a “New York” string returned one geolocation of “New York City” and another of “New York State”, the preferred result would be the result that appears most frequently.
In another embodiment, geopoint janitor 304 would examine the overlap of the returned results for disambiguation.
The geopoint janitor 304 could also look at the context of the original source document, such as a web page from which the document was extracted. For example, if the source page describes Greek history, has Greek words on it, or is from a .gr domain, the geopoint janitor 304 would select the geopoint location coordinates in Greece rather than those in Georgia.
In another embodiment, the geopoint janitor 304 determines any overlap between the potential geographic location coordinates and various location facts. As shown in
Returning now to
Similarly, the potential place name of “Empire State” in
Reference in the specification to “one embodiment” or to “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiments is included in at least one embodiment of the disclosed herein. The appearances of the phrase “in one embodiment” in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.
Some portions of the above are presented in terms of methods and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. A method is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps (instructions) leading to a desired result. The steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical, magnetic or optical signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared and otherwise manipulated. It is convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, text strings, or the like. Furthermore, it is also convenient at times, to refer to certain arrangements of steps requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities as modules or code devices, without loss of generality.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “determining” or “displaying” or “determining” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
Certain aspects of the disclosed implementations include process steps and instructions described herein in the form of a method. It should be noted that the process steps and instructions of the disclosed implementations can be embodied in software, firmware or hardware, and when embodied in software, can be downloaded to reside on and be operated from different platforms used by a variety of operating systems.
The disclosed implementations also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus. Furthermore, the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability.
The methods and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may also be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from the description below. In addition, the disclosed implementations are not described with reference to any particular programming language. It will be appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used to implement the teachings of the disclosed implementations as described herein, and any references below to specific languages are provided for disclosure of enablement and best mode of the disclosed implementations.
While the disclosed implementations have been particularly shown and described with reference to one embodiment and several alternate embodiments, it will be understood by persons skilled in the relevant art that various changes in form and details can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosed implementations.
Finally, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the inventive subject matter. Accordingly, the present disclosure is intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the disclosed implementations, which is set forth in the following claims.
This application is a Continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/732,157, filed on Dec. 31, 2012, entitled “DETERMINING GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS FOR PLACE NAMES IN A FACT REPOSITORY”, which is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/686,217, filed on Mar. 14, 2007, entitled “DETERMINING GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS FOR PLACE NAMES IN A FACT REPOSITORY”, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,347,202, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5475819 | Miller et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5560005 | Hoover et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5574898 | Leblang et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
6038560 | Wical | Mar 2000 | A |
6202065 | Wills et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6487495 | Gale et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6565610 | Wang et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6584464 | Warthen et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6636742 | Torkki et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6868411 | Shanahan et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6996572 | Chakrabarti et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7007228 | Carro et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7080073 | Jiang et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7269587 | Page et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7403939 | Virdy | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7454430 | Komissarchik et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7660784 | Virdy et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7917154 | Fortescue et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8086690 | Heymans et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8108501 | Birnie et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8122026 | Laroco et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8176027 | Shuman | May 2012 | B1 |
8347202 | Vespe et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8650175 | Hogue et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8751498 | Yakovenko et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8812435 | Zhao | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8825471 | Zhao et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
9092495 | Hogue et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9208229 | Betz et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9558186 | Betz et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9892132 | Vespe et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
20010021935 | Mills et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20020022956 | Ukrainczyk et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038307 | Obradovic et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020042707 | Zhao et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055954 | Breuer et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065814 | Okamoto et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065815 | Layden et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065845 | Naito et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073115 | Davis et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083039 | Ferrari et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087567 | Spiegler et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107861 | Clendinning et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020128818 | Ho et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020147738 | Reader et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020154175 | Abello et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169770 | Kim et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020173984 | Robertson et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020174099 | Raj et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178448 | Te Kiefte et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020194172 | Schreiber et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005036 | Mitzenmacher et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030018652 | Heckerman et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030058706 | Okamoto et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030069880 | Harrison et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030078902 | Leong et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030088607 | Ruellan et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097357 | Ferrari et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030115485 | Milliken et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120373 | Eames et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120644 | Shirota et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120654 | Edlund et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120659 | Sridhar et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120675 | Stauber et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030126102 | Borthwick et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030126152 | Rajak et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149567 | Schmitz et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030149699 | Tsao et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154071 | Shreve et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040006576 | Colbath et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040059726 | Hunter et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040122846 | Chess et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040167907 | Wakefield et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167911 | Wakefield et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040255237 | Tong et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268237 | Jones et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050034062 | Bufkin | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050055365 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086222 | Wang et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108630 | Wasson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114324 | Mayer et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050138007 | Amitay et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144241 | Stata et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050165781 | Kraft et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050171691 | Smartt | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050278314 | Buchheit et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278378 | Frank | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060041375 | Witmer et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060047691 | Humphreys et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074910 | Yun et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060129843 | Srinivasa et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060149800 | Egnor et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060197763 | Harrison | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060293879 | Zhao et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070106455 | Fuchs et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112777 | Field | May 2007 | A1 |
20070143282 | Betz et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150199 | Riise | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070150800 | Betz et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070198451 | Kehlenbeck et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198577 | Betz et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208683 | Geilich | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070258642 | Thota et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070276845 | Geilich | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080104019 | Nath et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080120310 | Khoury | May 2008 | A1 |
20080189249 | Petakov et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090119255 | Frank et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20130191385 | Vespe et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20140129538 | Hogue et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140289177 | Laroco et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140372473 | Zhao et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140372478 | Zhao | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140379743 | Yakovenko et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2004114163 | Dec 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Martins et al., “Handling Locations in Search Engine Queries”, Aug. 10, 2006, Seattle, Washington, Copyright 2006 ACM, pp. 6 (Year: 2006). |
Chaves et al., “A Geographic Knowledge Base for Semantic Web Applications”, 2005, Departamento de Informatica, Faculdade de Ciencias—Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 15 (Year: 2005). |
Etzioni, et al., “Web-Scale Information Extraction in KnowItAll (Preliminary Results)”, WWW2004, May 17-22, 2004, pp. 100-110. |
Gilster, “Get fast answers, easily”, Newsobserver.com, retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20050308154148/http://newsobserver.com/business/technology/gilster/2003/story/1258931p-7372446c.html, May 14, 2003, 2 pages. |
Katz, et al., “Omnibase: Uniform Access to Heterogeneous Data for Question Answering”, NLDB 2002, LCNS 2553, 2002, pp. 230-234. |
Kwok, et al., “Scaling question answering to the web”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 19, No. 3, Jul. 2001, pp. 242-262. |
Lam, et al., “Querying Web Data—The WebQA Approach”, IEEE Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, 2002, pp. 139-148. |
Lopez, et al., “AquaLog: An Ontology-Portable Question Answering System for the Semantic Web”, ESWC 2005, LNCS 3532, 2005, pp. 546-562. |
Mahlin, et al., “DOrAM: Real Answers to Real Questions”, AAMAS'02, Jul. 15-19, 2002, pp. 792-793. |
McCurley, “Geospatial Mapping and Navigation of the Web”, WWW10, May 1-5, 2001, pp. 221-229. |
Pradhan, et al., “Building a Foundation System for Producing Short Answers to Factual Questions”, Proceedings of the Eleventh Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2002), NIST Special Publication SP 500-251, 2003, pp. 1-10. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13732157 | Dec 2012 | US |
Child | 15891613 | US | |
Parent | 11686217 | Mar 2007 | US |
Child | 13732157 | US |