Embodiments of the invention relate to a computer system and computer-implemented method for processing natural language textual data to provide therefrom concept definitions and concept relationship synthesis using a semantic processing protocol in support of building semantic graphs and networks.
A semantic network is a directed graph consisting of vertices, which represent concepts, and edges which represent semantic relationships between concepts. Semantic networking is a process of developing these graphs. A key part of developing semantic graphs is the provision of concept definitions and concept relationships. The present invention addresses this issue.
A semantic network can, in essence, be viewed as a knowledge representation. A knowledge representation is a way to model and store knowledge so that a computer-implemented program may process and use it. In the present context, specifically, knowledge representation may be viewed as a rule-based modeling of natural language from a computational perspective. The substantive value of a knowledge representation is accumulative in nature and as such increases with the amount of knowledge that can be captured and encoded by a computerized facility within a particular model.
One problem associated with an unbounded knowledge representation, is that current systems may impose significant barriers to scale. This is one reason why knowledge representations are often very difficult to prepare. Further, their technical complexity and precision may impose intellectual and time constraints that limit their generation and use. Further, existing systems are generally directed to the analysis and retrieval of knowledge representation from existing forms such as documents and unstructured text. With these analysis and retrieval systems, the amount of knowledge extracted is necessarily limited to the amount of knowledge that was captured in the existing forms. They may not include all the potential for new knowledge that may be derivable from these documents.
As an example of these problems, consider the following application, typical of the current approach: A product support knowledge base comprising a collection of documents is made available to customers to address their questions about one or more products. The documents are annotated by the publisher with semantic data to describe in minute, machine-readable detail the subject matter of the documents. These documents are then made available through a search tool to provide the customers with the documents most relevant to their queries.
The problem with this application is that the breadth of knowledge encapsulated by the system is bounded by the documents contained within the knowledge base (as expressed through the explicit semantic representations of concept definitions and relationships). People, however, are able to create new knowledge that is inspired by the documents that they read. Continuing the example above, as customers read documents that are related to their needs, they are able to extrapolate from this existing knowledge into the very precise solutions they seek to their problems, creating new knowledge in the process. Unfortunately, there does not yet exist a technical solution that mirrors in a computer-implemented system this process of conceptual extrapolation. The publishers can only describe the knowledge they possess; they cannot provide a system of knowledge representation that encapsulates all the knowledge that might be required, or deduced, by their customers.
Therefore, great significance and associated business value for provisioning new concepts and concept relationships lies in pushing through these barriers to automate the scaling and proliferation of knowledge representations into brand new application areas. One way to distinguish between existing and new applications is that whereas existing applications might answer, “What knowledge is contained in these documents?”, new applications might answer, “What knowledge can we generate next?” Among the technical barriers to achieving such knowledge creation applications is the provisioning of new mechanisms to define and capture concepts and concept relationships.
There are various aspects to the systems and methods disclosed herein. Unless it is indicated to the contrary, these aspects are not intended to be mutually exclusive, but can be combined in various ways that are either discussed herein or will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Various embodiments, therefore, are shown and still other embodiments naturally will follow to those skilled in the art. An embodiment may instantiate one or more aspects of the invention. Embodiments, like aspects, are not intended to be mutually exclave unless the context indicates otherwise.
One aspect of the inventive concepts is a computer-implemented method to synthesize concept definitions and relationships, such as from a natural language data source, that comprises obtaining an active concept definition, matching the active concept definition to a plurality of extracted real concept definitions within a domain, analyzing the real concept definitions for coherence within their attributes and deriving a plurality of virtual concept definitions from the real concept definitions by semantic processing, such that the derived virtual concept definitions form a hierarchical structure.
Another aspect is a computer-implemented method to synthesize concept definitions and relationships, that comprises obtaining an active concept definition, matching the active concept definition to a plurality of extracted real concept definitions comprising attributes within a domain, analyzing the real concept definitions for coherence within their attributes and deriving a plurality of virtual concept definitions from the real concept definitions by semantic processing, such that the derived virtual concept definitions form a hierarchical structure.
Yet another aspect is a machine-readable medium containing executable computer-program instructions which, when executed by a data processing system causes said system to perform a method, the method comprising obtaining an active concept definition, matching the said active concept definition to a plural number of extracted real concept definitions comprising of attributes within a domain, the said real concept definitions analyzed for coherence within their attributes and deriving a plural number of virtual concept definitions from the real concept definitions by semantic processing such that, the derived virtual concept definitions form a hierarchical structure.
Further aspects include computer systems for practicing such methods. For example, an additional aspect is a semantic data processing computer system comprising: at least one tangible memory that stores processor-executable instructions for synthesizing concept definitions and relationships; and at least one hardware processor, coupled to the at least one tangible memory, that executes the processor-executable instructions to: obtain an active concept definition; extract a plural number of real concept definitions that comprise of attributes from a domain and analyze them for coherence within their attributes; match the said active concept definition to the extracted real concept definitions; and derive a plurality of virtual concept definitions from the real concept definitions semantic processing such that the derived virtual concept definitions form a hierarchical structure.
Visual Basic and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries. Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
There are disclosed herein a method, system and computer program providing means for provisioning concept definition and concept relationship synthesis. These aspects of the invention capitalize on the properties of tree structures and a semantic representation that models the intrinsic definition of a concept. As such, new concepts and concept relationships may be created in a way that is not constrained by any historical or existing knowledge representation. Thus, some embodiments of the present invention provide for a new, creative and user-directed expression of semantic representation and networking (graphs). This results in an ability to synthesize forward-looking knowledge, not merely the extraction of historical knowledge.
A practical utility of this approach may comprise a whole or part of a brainstorming session, developing insights by uncovering new concepts from existing knowledge in the aid of creative writing, carving of journalistic research from a huge corpus of text documents, and in general any directed research or study which may involve developing new insights from a given corpus of text-based linguistic data. Embodiments of the inventions generate, from a domain of data, virtual concept definitions and relationships between virtual concept definitions (e.g., a hierarchy of virtual concept definitions). In some embodiments, the virtual concept definitions and their relationships may be provided to a user to aid in the activities discussed above. In other embodiments, the virtual concept definitions and their relationships may be provided to document processing/generation software which uses these definitions to aid in the automatic generation of document or to facilitate manual generation of such documents.
In some embodiments, an active concept is entered or acquired by a cognitive (e.g., human and/or software) agent and relevant real concept definitions are extracted from data representing a particular knowledge domain. The extracted definitions are computer-analyzed for their attribute set coherence within the context of the active concept definition. Attribute sets are then selected from the extracted real concept definitions and a concept synthesis process derives virtual concept definitions based upon selected attribute sets. These derived virtual concept definitions are then assembled into hierarchies. The remaining extracted real concept definitions are then computer-analyzed against the derived virtual concept definition hierarchy and if any further virtual concept definitions can be derived, then the process is repeated. The semantic protocols exemplified in the context of the present invention are formal concept analysis and faceted classification synthesis. In addition, various overlays that affect selection of attributes such as attribute co-occurrence and relative proximity are incorporated. Further, various numerically oriented limitations in the derivations of virtual concepts are also incorporated.
One way to provide for concept definitions and concept relationships is by extraction of concept definitions from existing documents. However, this may be limited by what is already encoded in the documents and it does not provide for new concept synthesis. As such, extracted semantic representations may act only as a basis for a subsequent process of data transformation that produces a synthesis of new concept definitions and new concept relationships.
Extraction of concepts may be understood, for example, with reference to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/540,628 (Pub. No. US 2007-0078889 A1), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. In that application, Hoskinson provides for extraction of concepts from existing documents. An information extraction facility extracts text and then extracts keywords from captured text. The keywords are extracted by splitting text into a word array using various punctuation marks and space characters as separators of words, such that each element in the array is a word Subsequently, the process generates a keyword index from the word array by removing all words in the word array that are numeric, are less than two characters, or are stopwords (e.g., and, an, the an, etc). All the remaining words are included in the keyword index. Once the keyword index is generated, words in the keyword index that occur at least a threshold number of times are retained in the index, while words that occur less than the threshold hold number of times are removed from the index. The keyword index may be further identify key phrases in the text. These key phrases may be viewed as equivalent to the concepts referred to in the present disclosure. Sets of key phrases associated with keywords that provide a context for the key phrases may be viewed as equivalent to the existing concept definitions referred to in the present disclosure.
Hoskinson describes identifying key phrases using the keyword index and document text as follows. First, the document text is analyzed and punctuation symbols that are associated with phrase boundaries are replaced with a tilde character. Next, a character array is generated by parsing the document into strings that are separated by space characters. Each element in the array is either a word or a phrase boundary character (i.e., a tilde character). Next, the process enumerates through the character array, and determines whether each element is a keyword that appears in the keyword index. If an element is not a keyword, it is replaced with a phrase boundary (i.e., tilde) character. The array elements are then concatenated into a character string, where each character string is delineated by the phrase boundary. It is then determined if each character string is a single word or a phrase. If it is a phrase, it is considered to be a keyphrase, and is added to the keyphrase dictionary.
It should be appreciated that the above-described technique for extracting concepts from documents is one illustrative technique for concept extraction. Many other techniques may be used and the invention is not limited to using this or any other particular technique.
Further, existing concept definitions that are extracted from a domain or corpus of data may be used as a measure of coherence of various attributes sets (combinations of different attributes). Inputs that are active concepts are entered by cognitive agents such as people or machine based expert systems and processed through data analysis or a semantic processing protocol in order to procure existing concepts and relationships covering the context of the active concept within a domain. The existing concepts, also known as real concept definitions, provide a basis to build virtual concepts and their subsequent relationships around the active concept.
One semantic processing protocol that may be utilizable to implement tree-structure synthesis is formal concept analysis. Formal concept analysis may be viewed as a principled way of automatically deriving a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts from a collection of objects and their properties (attributes). Other semantic processing protocols that may be used to implement tree-structure synthesis are formal concept analysis, faceted classification synthesis, and concept inferencing using semantic reasoners. All these approaches are available in the prior art.
Explanation of Key Terms
Domain: A domain is body of information, such as (but not limited to) a corpus of documents, a website or a database.
Attribute: A property of an object.
Attribute set coherence: Attribute set coherence is a measure of the logical coherence of concept attributes when considered as a set within a concept definition structure.
Content Node: Comprises of any object that is amenable to classification, such as a file, a document, a portion of a document, an image, or a stored string of characters.
Hierarchy: An arrangement of broader and narrower terms. Broader terms may be viewed as objects and narrower terms as attributes.
Tree Structures: Trees are like hierarchies comprising directed classes and subclasses, but using only a subset of attributes to narrow the perspective. An organizational chart can be seen as an example of a tree structure. The hierarchical relationships are only valid from perspective of job roles or responsibilities. If the full attributes of each individual were considered, no one would be related hierarchically.
Concept Definition: Semantic representations of concepts defined structurally in a machine-readable form are known as concept definitions. One such representation structures concepts in terms of other more fundamental entities such as concept attributes. A concept definition has its own hierarchy, with a concept as parent and attributes as children. Attributes may in turn be treated as concepts, with their own sets of attributes. Concepts may be associated with specific content nodes.
Concept Synthesis: Concept synthesis is the creation of new (virtual) concepts and relationships between concepts.
Confidence Gradient: The gradient refers to an ordered range of values while confidence may be referred to as a metric used in algorithms to assess the probability that one set of attributes is more coherent than others. So the composition “confidence gradient” might refer to a declining or elevating confidence level within a group of attribute sets as well as an ordered increase or decrease of the confidence metric within an attribute set with the count of each single attribute starting from general to specific. The confidence may be calibrated using a number of properties of attributes. Two frequently used ones are relative proximity between selected attributes and co-occurrence of two attributes in a set of concept definitions. Another possible measure of confidence would involve overlaying of relative proximity over co-occurrence.
Faceted Classification Synthesis: Faceted classification synthesis allows a concept to be defined using attributes from different classes or facets. Faceted classification incorporates the principle that information has a multi-dimensional quality and can be classified in many different ways. Subjects of an informational domain may be subdivided into facets to represent this dimensionality. The attributes of the domain are related in facet hierarchies. The materials within the domain are then identified and classified based on these attributes. The “synthesis” in faceted classification synthesis refers to the assignment of attributes to objects to define real concepts.
According to one aspect of the disclosed systems and methods, there is shown a synthesis of concepts and hierarchical relationships between concepts, using relevant real (existing) concept definitions within a domain by deriving virtual concept definitions from the existing relevant real concept definitions. The act of deriving a virtual concept definition may be performed utilizing a number of semantic processing protocols that are known in the prior art, such as FCA and faceted classification synthesis, or that may subsequently become known.
With reference to
Formal Concept Analysis
In a further aspect, a way to derive virtual concept definitions in response to an input of an active concept is by formal concept analysis (FCA). If we have real concept definitions Rα and Rβ, with sets of attributes ordered in a confidence gradient which provides a measure of the coherence of the attributes within the concept definitions, given as follows:
So we begin with an input, from an input agent or a cognitive agent, of an AC represented by
Continuing, recursively, one may determine what is concurrent with “software” and “computers” within the real concept definitions. In this, one finds the following:
In the result, V1 and V4 are in a hierarchy and are derived from R1, R2, R3 and R4. For a larger number of real concept definitions with additional attributes it is possible to unfold more hierarchal structures and relationships. If, for a given active concept, the system does not return a sufficient number of real concept definitions in order to derive virtual concept definitions, any number of domains can be searched to achieve the objective. The sufficient number may be considered as a minimum number of domains required to produce at least a selectable depth of one hierarchy within derived virtual concepts or may, additionally, require producing at least a selectable number of hierarchies of derivable virtual concept definitions from a domain. Further, a selectable maximum depth of a hierarchy and a selectable maximum number of hierarchies derived may cap the synthesis process.
Overlaying an additional criterion, namely relative proximity, as a confidence measure in order to build virtual concept definitions can change the virtual concepts derived from the real concept definitions using formal concept analysis. Relative proximity may be referred to as the physical separation of one attribute from another within an attribute set of a concept definition. In the example above, within R2, the attribute “software” is one attribute away from ‘computers’ and “software application”, whereas “software” is two attributes away from “algorithm”. In R3, however, “software” is adjacent to “algorithm” or zero attributes away from “algorithm”. So one can consider zero as the default relative proximity for “software” and “algorithm” from the existing domain information. If more weight were given to relative proximity and relative proximity were overlaid on the above example, then the virtual concept with a higher confidence measure would come first in the tree. For example, the V1 in this case would be:
The sets R1 through R4 in the above example are associated sets. If the real concept definitions are disjoint sets, that is, if none of the attributes of the real concept definitions overlap, then the data transformation is as follows:
Let the disjoint real concept definitions sets be:
In a further aspect of this disclosure, a way to derive virtual concept definitions in response to an input of an active concept may be implemented by using faceted classification synthesis (FCS) which is based on a structure of facets and attributes that exists within a domain.
Domain Input: (computer, laptop, desktop, servers, software, Windows®, Linux®, operating system, software application, CPU, calculator, algorithm, computer language, user interface, machine language, C, Visual Basic®, C++, HTML)
In this example the domain includes the following facets, built by FCS, with their composite attributes such that they have built-in confidence gradient as followed by the classification structure.
All the facet attribute sets and the number indices (for example F233) listed above in the current example refer to a unique path within the facet attribute hierarchies, with any attribute inheriting all the prior attributes above it. The unique path refers to the index path with reference to
In the outcome, it is noted that many of the virtual concept definitions are arranged in a hierarchy. At all times, the confidences of the derived concept definitions remain intact, as they are in the existing domain, as the faceted classification synthesis inheritance path is strictly taken into account while deriving the virtual definitions. If the domain facet attribute sets are deeper than the example given here then one may set relative proximity greater than one. Additional virtual definitions are then derivable with deeper structures. The minimum and maximum number of derived virtual concept definitions and the attributes within are selectable in faceted classification synthesis as discussed above.
In addition, limits on the derivation of virtual concept definitions, in any form of semantic processing, may also be based on a confidence gradient or on additional qualitative aspects, such as (and not limited to) having every concept be a possible ancestor of at least one real concept or having no concept with the same descendant set as its parent.
If the domain objects defined as real concept definitions are such that a group of them is exclusively drawing attributes from a certain group of facet attribute sets and another group of real concept definitions is drawing attributes from a different group of facet attribute sets (having disjoint real concept definitions) then the active concept will go through the first group of real concept definitions and then any other disassociated group one at a time until all disjoint groups of real concept definitions are exhausted. As always, caps are selectable based upon a number of properties or just an arbitrary number to limit the active concept going through real concept definitions.
Another interesting outcome of the synthesis process is the resulting simple and broader concepts such as “binning” which might not be readily available in the extracted real definitions. Bins, generally, are concepts that group a number of other concepts based on one or more common (shared) attributes, derived in whole from multiple real to concepts such as V1: {software, computers} in the discussion of formal concept analysis.
In all aspects of the present inventions the unique combination of tree-structure classification with concept synthesis provides a far greater number of structurally pared-down virtual concept definitions and their relationships when compared to the existing real concept definitions extracted in the context of the active concept in focus. This is essentially the main objective of tree-structure synthesis.
The above-described embodiments of the present invention can be implemented in any of numerous ways. For example, the embodiments may be implemented using hardware, software or a combination thereof. When implemented in software, the software code can be executed on any suitable processor or collection of processors, whether provided in a single computer or distributed among multiple computers. It should be appreciated that any component or collection of components that perform the functions described above can be generically considered as one or more controllers that control the above-discussed functions. The one or more controllers can be implemented in numerous ways, such as with dedicated hardware, or with general purpose hardware (e.g., one or more processors) that is programmed using microcode or software to perform the functions recited above.
In this respect, it should be appreciated that one implementation of the embodiments of the present invention comprises at least one computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a computer memory, a floppy disk, a compact disk, a tape, and/or other tangible storage media.) encoded with a computer program (i.e., a plurality of instructions), which, when executed on a processor, performs the above-discussed functions of the embodiments of the present invention. The computer-readable medium can be transportable such that the program stored thereon can be loaded onto any computer system resource to implement the aspects of the present invention discussed herein. In addition, it should be appreciated that the reference to a computer program which, when executed, performs the above-discussed functions, is not limited to an application program running on a host computer. Rather, the term computer program is used herein in a generic sense to reference any type of computer code (e.g., software or microcode) that can be employed to program a processor to implement the above-discussed aspects of the present invention.
It should be appreciated that in accordance with several embodiments of the present invention wherein processes are implemented in a computer readable medium, the computer implemented processes may, during the course of their execution, receive input manually (e.g., from a user), in the manners described above.
Having described several embodiments of the invention in detail, various modifications and improvements will readily occur to those skilled in the art. Such modifications and improvements are intended to be within the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the foregoing description is by way of example only, and is not intended as limiting. The invention is limited only as defined by the following claims and the equivalents thereto.
This application is a continuation of and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/571,902, entitled “Systems And Methods For Semantic Concept Definition And Semantic Concept Relationship Synthesis Utilizing Existing Domain Definitions” and filed on Dec. 16, 2014. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/571,902 is a continuation of and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/919,934, entitled “Systems And Methods For Semantic Concept Definition And Semantic Concept Relationship Synthesis Utilizing Existing Domain Definitions” and filed on Jun. 17, 2013. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/919,934 is a continuation of and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/549,812, entitled “Systems And Methods For Semantic Concept Definition And Semantic Concept Relationship Synthesis Utilizing Existing Domain Definitions” and filed on Aug. 28, 2009. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/549,812 claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), priority to and the benefit of the filing date of, U.S. provisional application Ser. No. 61/092,973, filed on Aug. 29, 2008, and titled, “Semantic Concept Definition And Semantic Concept Relationship Synthesis Utilizing Existing Domain Definitions.” Each of the above-listed applications is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3943462 | Thompson | Mar 1976 | A |
4532813 | Rinehart | Aug 1985 | A |
4972328 | Wu et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5056021 | Ausborn | Oct 1991 | A |
5193185 | Lanter | Mar 1993 | A |
5369763 | Biles | Nov 1994 | A |
5594837 | Noyes | Jan 1997 | A |
5617514 | Dolby et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5745910 | Piersol et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5793376 | Tanaka et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5835758 | Nochur et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5911145 | Arora et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5937400 | Au | Aug 1999 | A |
5953726 | Carter et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6006222 | Culliss | Dec 1999 | A |
6078916 | Culliss | Jun 2000 | A |
6098033 | Richardson et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6138085 | Richardson et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6167390 | Brady et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173276 | Kant et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6233575 | Agrawal et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6292792 | Belles et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6295066 | Tanizaki et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6334131 | Chakrabarti et al. | Dec 2001 | B2 |
6349275 | Schumacher et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6356899 | Chakrabarti et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6396864 | O'Brien et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401061 | Zieman | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6499024 | Stier et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6539376 | Sundaresan et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6539395 | Gjerdingen et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6556983 | Altschuler et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6571240 | Ho et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6694329 | Murray | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6751611 | Krupin et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751621 | Calistri-Yeh et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6768982 | Collins et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772136 | Kant et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785683 | Zodik et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6868525 | Szabo | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6976020 | Anthony et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6980984 | Huffman et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7007074 | Radwin | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7035864 | Ferrari et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7051023 | Kapur et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7062466 | Wagner et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7062483 | Ferrari et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7089237 | Turnbull et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7120646 | Streepy, Jr. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7152065 | Behrens et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7181465 | Maze et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7209922 | Maze et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7225183 | Gardner | May 2007 | B2 |
7249117 | Estes | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7280991 | Beams et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7283992 | Liu et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7302418 | Asahara | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7319951 | Rising, III et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7392250 | Dash et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7406456 | Calistri-Yeh et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7418452 | Maze | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7440940 | Chen et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7478089 | Henkin et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7490073 | Qureshi et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7493319 | Dash et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7496593 | Gardner et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7502810 | Acevedo-Aviles et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7580918 | Chang et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7596374 | Katou | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7596574 | Sweeney | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7606168 | Robinson et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7606781 | Sweeney et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7627582 | Ershov | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7668737 | Streepy, Jr. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7698266 | Weissman et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7711672 | Au | May 2010 | B2 |
7716207 | Odom et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7716216 | Harik et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7720857 | Beringer et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7752199 | Farrell | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7752534 | Blanchard, III et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7827125 | Rennison | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7844565 | Sweeney | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7849090 | Sweeney | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7860817 | Sweeney et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7945555 | Sankaran et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7970764 | Ershov | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8010570 | Sweeney | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8281238 | Sweeney et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8296179 | Rennison | Oct 2012 | B1 |
8495001 | Sweeney et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8943016 | Sweeney et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
20020069197 | Katayama et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078044 | Song et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020091736 | Wall | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020133483 | Klenk et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020194187 | McNeil et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030177112 | Gardner | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030196094 | Hillis et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030217023 | Cui et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217335 | Chung et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040001087 | Warmus et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024739 | Cooperman et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040049522 | Streepy, Jr. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040117395 | Gong et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050010428 | Bergeron et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050065955 | Babikov et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086188 | Hillis et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050149518 | Duan et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050154708 | Sun | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050209874 | Rossini | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050216335 | Fikes et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223109 | Mamou et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050289524 | McGinnes | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010117 | Bonabeau et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060026147 | Cone et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060053172 | Gardner et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060074980 | Sarkar | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085489 | Tomic et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060129906 | Wall | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060153083 | Wallenius | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060156222 | Chi et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060195407 | Athelogou et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060242564 | Egger et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060271520 | Ragan | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070005621 | Lesh | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033531 | Marsh | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070036440 | Schaepe et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038500 | Hammitt et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061195 | Liu et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078889 | Hoskinson | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083492 | Hohimer et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094221 | Au | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070106658 | Ferrari et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070112840 | Carson et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070118542 | Sweeney | May 2007 | A1 |
20070118642 | Kumbalimutt | May 2007 | A1 |
20070124320 | Stuhec | May 2007 | A1 |
20070136221 | Sweeney et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143300 | Gulli et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070174041 | Yeske | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070192272 | Elfayoumy et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203865 | Hirsch | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208719 | Tran | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070208764 | Grisinger | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070288503 | Taylor | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294200 | Au | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070300142 | King et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080001948 | Hirsch | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080004864 | Gabrilovich et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080021925 | Sweeney | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080072145 | Blanchard et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080086465 | Fontenot et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080092044 | Lewis et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080120072 | Bartz et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080126303 | Park et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080133213 | Pollara | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080137668 | Rodriguez et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080154906 | McDavid et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162498 | Omoigui | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080228568 | Williams et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080243480 | Bartz et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080270120 | Pestian et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275694 | Varone | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080281814 | Calistri-Yeh et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294584 | Herz | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090012842 | Srinivasan et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090016600 | Eaton et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090018988 | Abrams et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024385 | Hirsch | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090024556 | Hirsch | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090028164 | Hirsch | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090055342 | Gong et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090070219 | D'Angelo et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083140 | Phan | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083208 | Raghaven et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090106234 | Siedlecki et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090138454 | Rayner et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090144059 | Yu et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090150809 | Hirsch | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090157442 | Tesler | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090157616 | Barber et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090182725 | Govani et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090192954 | Katukuri et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090192968 | Tunstall-Pedoe | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090198561 | Otto et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090228425 | Goraya | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090300326 | Sweeney | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090307581 | Jaepel et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327205 | Sweeney | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090327417 | Chakra et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100004975 | White et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100030552 | Chen et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036783 | Rodriguez | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036790 | Sweeney et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100036829 | Leyba | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100049702 | Martinez et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100049766 | Sweeney et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100057664 | Sweeney et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100100546 | Kohler | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100107094 | Steelberg et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100122151 | Mendelson et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100153219 | Mei et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100161317 | Au | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100198724 | Thomas | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100205061 | Karmarkar | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217745 | Song et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100223295 | Stanley et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100228693 | Dawson et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100235307 | Sweeney | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100250526 | Prochazka et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100257171 | Shekhawat | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100262456 | Feng et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100268596 | Wissner et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100280860 | Iskold et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100281029 | Parikh et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100285818 | Crawford | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100287011 | Muchkaev | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110040749 | Ceri et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110060644 | Sweeney | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110060645 | Sweeney | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110060794 | Sweeney | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110106821 | Hassanzadeh et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110113386 | Sweeney et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110173176 | Christensen et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110282919 | Sweeney et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110295903 | Chen | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110314006 | Sweeney et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110314382 | Sweeney | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320396 | Hunt et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120143880 | Sweeney et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120150874 | Sweeney et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120166371 | Sweeney et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120166372 | Ilyas et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120166373 | Sweeney et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120233127 | Solmer et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120330936 | McCloskey et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130035996 | Frey | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130282647 | Sweeney et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20150100540 | Sweeney et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2451737 | Jun 2005 | CA |
2734756 | Mar 2010 | CA |
1395193 | May 2003 | CN |
101268483 | Sep 2008 | CN |
101385025 | Mar 2009 | CN |
101595476 | Dec 2009 | CN |
0 962 873 | Dec 1999 | EP |
H11212975 | Aug 1999 | JP |
2002366836 | Dec 2002 | JP |
2004145661 | May 2004 | JP |
2006229682 | Aug 2006 | JP |
2007087216 | Apr 2007 | JP |
2007241713 | Sep 2007 | JP |
2009508275 | Feb 2009 | JP |
2009521750 | Jun 2009 | JP |
2010012530 | Jan 2010 | JP |
5538393 | Feb 2014 | JP |
2014179114 | Sep 2014 | JP |
WO 02054292 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO 2004061546 | Jul 2004 | WO |
WO 2004075466 | Sep 2004 | WO |
WO 2005020093 | Mar 2005 | WO |
WO 2005020094 | Mar 2005 | WO |
WO 2006002234 | Jan 2006 | WO |
WO 2007047971 | Apr 2007 | WO |
WO 2008025167 | Mar 2008 | WO |
WO 2008076438 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO 2009014837 | Jan 2009 | WO |
WO 2009132442 | Nov 2009 | WO |
WO 2010022505 | Mar 2010 | WO |
WO 2010149427 | Dec 2010 | WO |
WO 2011029177 | Mar 2011 | WO |
WO 2011029177 | Mar 2011 | WO |
WO 2011057396 | May 2011 | WO |
WO 2011160204 | Dec 2011 | WO |
WO 2011160205 | Dec 2011 | WO |
WO 2011160214 | Dec 2011 | WO |
WO 2012088590 | Jul 2012 | WO |
WO 2012088591 | Jul 2012 | WO |
WO 2012088611 | Jul 2012 | WO |
WO 2012092669 | Jul 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
JPO, Notice of Reason(s) for Rejection for JP Application No. 2016-084916 dated Jun. 6, 2017. |
Hiroaki Ohshima, et al., “Creating Personal Concept/Term Tree based on Documents and Directory Structure and Applying for Web Search Personalization,” DEWS (Proceeding of Data Engineering Workshop) 2005, Japan, Data Engineering of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers (IEICE), Aug. 10, 2009, pp. 1-8. |
CIPO, Office Action for CA Application No. 2,734,756 dated Jun. 8, 2017. |
USPTO, Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/571,902 dated Jun. 17 2015. |
USPTO, Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/571,902 dated Jul. 1, 2016. |
ILPO, Notice of objection in accordance with regulation 41 for IL Application No. 211242 dated Feb. 6, 2014. |
SIPO, Board Opinion for CN Application No. 200980133432.7 dated Oct. 28, 2015. |
SIPO, Board Decision for CN Application No. 200980133432.7 dated May 13, 2016. |
SIPO, Office Action for CN Application No. 2016106655720 dated Jun. 4, 2018. |
Canadian Office Action for Canadian Application No. 2,734,756 dated Feb. 10, 2015. |
Chinese Office Action for Chinese Application No. 200780032062.9, dated May 17, 2011. |
Chinese Office Action for Chinese Application No. 201080047908.8 dated Sep. 17, 2014. |
Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2011-524147, dated Sep. 10, 2013. |
Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2012-528200 dated Jul. 16, 2013. |
Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2012-528200 dated Apr. 22, 2014. |
Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2012-528200 dated Nov. 4, 2014. |
Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2014-092256 dated Mar. 17, 2015. |
Japanese Office Action for Japanese Application No. 2014-092256 dated Jan. 19, 2016. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,452 dated Mar. 30, 2009. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,452 dated Dec. 7, 2009. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/625,452 dated Mar. 26, 2010. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/477,994 dated Aug. 31, 2010. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/477,977 dated Sep. 28, 2010. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/469,258 dated Aug. 21, 2008. |
Interview Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/469,258 dated Dec. 16, 2008. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/550,457 dated Dec. 15, 2008. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/556,349 dated Jun. 29, 2010. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/441,100 dated Jun. 9, 2011. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/441,100 dated Jan. 24, 2012. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/441,100 dated May 4, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/549,812 dated Oct. 1, 2012. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/549,812 dated May 10, 2013. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/919,934 dated Oct. 25, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/919,934 dated Jun. 24, 2014. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/549,812 dated Sep. 18, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Jan. 27, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Oct. 31, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Mar. 26, 2013. |
Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Jul. 9, 2013. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Apr. 15, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Aug. 19, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,222 dated Dec. 5, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,341 dated Feb. 9, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,341 dated Aug. 1, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,341 dated Apr. 15, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,341 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/555,293 dated Mar. 20, 2013. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/615,703 dated Feb. 1, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/105,890 dated Jun. 26, 2012. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/340,792 dated Jun. 10, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/340,792 dated Dec. 22, 2014. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/CA2007/001546 dated Dec. 28, 2007. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/CA2007/001546 dated Dec. 19, 2008. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/CA2009/000567 dated Aug. 24, 2009. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/CA2009/000567 dated Nov. 11, 2010. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/CA2009/001185 dated Dec. 3, 2009. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/CA2009/001185 dated Mar. 10, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/CA2010/001382 dated Jan. 13, 2011. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/CA2010/001382 dated Mar. 22, 2012. |
International search report and written opinion for International application No. PCT/CA2010/001772, dated Apr. 28, 2011. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International application No. PCT/CA2010/001772, dated May 24, 2012. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/CA2011/000718 dated Oct. 13, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/CA2011/000719, dated Sep. 28, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/CA2011/000745 dated Sep. 22, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/CA2011/001382 dated Apr. 24, 2012. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/CA2011/001402, dated Apr. 24, 2012. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/CA2011/001403 dated May 23, 2012. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/CA2012/000007, dated Apr. 20, 2012. |
International Preliminary Report on patentability for PCT/CA2012/000007, dated Jul. 11, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/CA2012/000009, dated May 1, 2012. |
[No Author Listed] “Faceted Classification and Adaptive Concept Matching,” Gemstone Business Intelligence Ltd., Feb. 2006. pp. 1-7. 7 pages. |
Anick et al., Interactive document retrieval using faceted terminological feedback. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999;2(2):2036-2048. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/HICSS.1999.772692. |
Blei et al., Hierarchical Bayesian models for applications in information retrieval. In: Bayesian Statistics 7. Bernardo et al., eds. 2003:25-43. |
Bollegala et al., Measuring semantic similarity between words using web searches engines. Proceedings of 16th International Conference on World Wide Web. 2007;757-66. |
Brewster et al., User-Centered Ontology Learning for Knowledge Management. 7th International Workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, Stockholm, Jun. 27-28, 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Springer Verlag. 2002:12 pages. |
Brewster et al., User-Centered Ontology Learning for Knowledge Management. 7th International Workshop on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, Stockholm, Jun. 27-28, 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, Springer Verlag. 2002:203-207. 5 pages. |
Dakka et al., Automatic Extraction of Useful Facet Hierarchies from Text Databases. Data Engineering. IEEE 24th International Conference on Apr. 7-12, 2008. ICDE 2008:466-475. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ICDE.2008.4467455. |
Fikadu et al., A Framework for Personalized Information Retrieval Model. Conference Proceedings, Second International Conference on Computer and Network Technology (ICCNT), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA Apr. 23, 2010, pp. 500-505. |
Gabrilovich et al., Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia-based explicit semantic analysis. Proceedings of 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2007;1606-11. |
Haraguchi et al., Multiple Classification of Instance Concepts Based on Weak Identities. No. 56, Society for the Study of Basic Issue for AI, Japan, The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence. 2004;7-12. |
Hassan-Montero et al., Improving tag-clouds as visual information retrieval interfaces, International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences and Technologies, InSciT2006. Oct. 25-28, 2006, Merida, Spain. 6 pages. |
Hiemstra, A probabilistic justification for using tf-idf term weighting in information retrieval. International Journal on Digital Libraries. 2000;3(2):131-39. |
Ichise, Methods of Constructing Concepts for Categorization. The Journal of Information Science and Technology Association, Principles of Informatics Research Division, National Institute of Informatics. 2008; 78-83, 94. |
Jiang et al., Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. Proceedings of International Conference Research on Computational Linguistics. 1997; 15 pages. |
Jones, A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its applications in retrieval. Journal of Documentation. 2004;60(5):493-502. |
Kaser et al., Tag-Cloud Drawing: Algorithms for Cloud Visualization, arXiv:cs/0703109v2 [cs.DS] May 7, 2007. |
Lewis, Naive (Bayes) at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 1998;1398:4-15. |
Ma et al., Semantic Information Extraction of Video Based on Ontology and Inference. ICSC 2007. International Conference on Semantic Computing. 2007;1:721-726. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ ICSC.2007.12. |
Metzler et al., A Markov random field model for term dependencies. Proceedings of SIGIR 2005. 2005:472-79. |
Ozcan et al., Concept-based information access. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing. ITCC 2005;1:794-799. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/ITCC.2005.111. |
Payne et al., Calendar Agents on the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems. Jun. 2002;17(3):84-86. |
Robertson, Understanding inverse document frequency: On theoretical arguments for ids. Journal of Documentation. 2004;60(5):503-20. |
Rocha, Adaptive Webs for Heterarchies with Diverse Communities of Users. Paper prepared for the workshop from Intelligent Networks to the Global Brain: Evolutionary Social Organization through Knowledge Technology, Brussels, Jul. 3-5, 2001. LAUR005173. 35 pages. |
Seco et al., An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in wordnet. Proceedings of 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2004;1089-90. |
Slavic et al., Core Requirements for Automation of Analytico-Synthetic Classifications. Advances in Knowledge Organization. 2004;9:187-192. |
Song et al., A conceptual graph approach to semantic similarity computation method for e-service discovery. International Journal on Knowledge Engineering and Data Mining. 2010;1(1):50-68. |
Storey, Comparing Relationships in Conceptual Modeling: Mapping to Semantic Classifications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2005;17(11):1478-1489. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/. |
Terra et al., Frequency estimates for statistical word similarity measures. Proceedings of 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology. 2003:165-172. |
Wang et al., Gene expression correlation and gene ontology-based similarity: An assessment of quantitative relationships. Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. 2004:25-31. |
Wu et al., Interpreting tf-idf term weights as making relevance decisions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 2008;26(3):Article No. 13. |
Yamada et al., Case-Base Structure Incorporated with Attribute Set in Concept Hierarchy. IPSG SIG Notes. 1997;97(81):33-8. |
Yamaoka et al., Creation of a Successful Product, Observation Engineering. Kyoritsu Shuppan Co Ltd. Jun. 15, 2008:;39. 1st edition. |
Zhai, Statistical language models for information retrieval—a critical review. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval. 2008;2(3):137-213. |
Zhang et al., Bootstrapping Ontology Learning for Information Retrieval Using Formal Concept Analysis and Information Anchors. 14th International Conference on Conceptual Structures. Aalborg, Denmark. Jul. 2006. 14 pages. |
USPTO, Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/418,875 dated Apr. 6, 2020. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160180221 A1 | Jun 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61092973 | Aug 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14571902 | Dec 2014 | US |
Child | 15054327 | US | |
Parent | 13919934 | Jun 2013 | US |
Child | 14571902 | US | |
Parent | 12549812 | Aug 2009 | US |
Child | 13919934 | US |