BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Johan Bos

Johan Bos appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceLogic in Computer ScienceMachine LearningProgramming Languages

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Drawing Prolog Search Trees: A Manual for Teachers and Students of Logic Programming

Programming in Prolog is hard for programmers that are used to procedural coding. In this manual the method of drawing search trees is introduced with the aim to get a better understanding of how Prolog works. After giving a first example of a Prolog database, query and search tree, the art of drawing search trees is systematically introduced giving guidelines for queries with variables, conjunction, disjunction, and negation. Further examples are provided by giving the complete search trees that are shown in Learn Prolog Now!

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

DRS at MRP 2020: Dressing up Discourse Representation Structures as Graphs

Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) is a formal account for representing the meaning of natural language discourse. Meaning in DRT is modeled via a Discourse Representation Structure (DRS), a meaning representation with a model-theoretic interpretation, which is usually depicted as nested boxes. In contrast, a directed labeled graph is a common data structure used to encode semantics of natural language texts. The paper describes the procedure of dressing up DRSs as directed labeled graphs to include DRT as a new framework in the 2020 shared task on Cross-Framework and Cross-Lingual Meaning Representation Parsing. Since one of the goals of the shared task is to encourage unified models for several semantic graph frameworks, the conversion procedure was biased towards making the DRT graph framework somewhat similar to other graph-based meaning representation frameworks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The First Shared Task on Discourse Representation Structure Parsing

The paper presents the IWCS 2019 shared task on semantic parsing where the goal is to produce Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs) for English sentences. DRSs originate from Discourse Representation Theory and represent scoped meaning representations that capture the semantics of negation, modals, quantification, and presupposition triggers. Additionally, concepts and event-participants in DRSs are described with WordNet synsets and the thematic roles from VerbNet. To measure similarity between two DRSs, they are represented in a clausal form, i.e. as a set of tuples. Participant systems were expected to produce DRSs in this clausal form. Taking into account the rich lexical information, explicit scope marking, a high number of shared variables among clauses, and highly-constrained format of valid DRSs, all these makes the DRS parsing a challenging NLP task. The results of the shared task displayed improvements over the existing state-of-the-art parser.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Parallel Meaning Bank: A Framework for Semantically Annotating Multiple Languages

This paper gives a general description of the ideas behind the Parallel Meaning Bank, a framework with the aim to provide an easy way to annotate compositional semantics for texts written in languages other than English. The annotation procedure is semi-automatic, and comprises seven layers of linguistic information: segmentation, symbolisation, semantic tagging, word sense disambiguation, syntactic structure, thematic role labelling, and co-reference. New languages can be added to the meaning bank as long as the documents are based on translations from English, but also introduce new interesting challenges on the linguistics assumptions underlying the Parallel Meaning Bank.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Thirty Musts for Meaning Banking

Meaning banking--creating a semantically annotated corpus for the purpose of semantic parsing or generation--is a challenging task. It is quite simple to come up with a complex meaning representation, but it is hard to design a simple meaning representation that captures many nuances of meaning. This paper lists some lessons learned in nearly ten years of meaning annotation during the development of the Groningen Meaning Bank (Bos et al., 2017) and the Parallel Meaning Bank (Abzianidze et al., 2017). The paper's format is rather unconventional: there is no explicit related work, no methodology section, no results, and no discussion (and the current snippet is not an abstract but actually an introductory preface). Instead, its structure is inspired by work of Traum (2000) and Bender (2013). The list starts with a brief overview of the existing meaning banks (Section 1) and the rest of the items are roughly divided into three groups: corpus collection (Section 2 and 3, annotation methods (Section 4-11), and design of meaning representations (Section 12-30). We hope this overview will give inspiration and guidance in creating improved meaning banks in the future.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Semantic Tagging with Deep Residual Networks

We propose a novel semantic tagging task, sem-tagging, tailored for the purpose of multilingual semantic parsing, and present the first tagger using deep residual networks (ResNets). Our tagger uses both word and character representations and includes a novel residual bypass architecture. We evaluate the tagset both intrinsically on the new task of semantic tagging, as well as on Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging. Our system, consisting of a ResNet and an auxiliary loss function predicting our semantic tags, significantly outperforms prior results on English Universal Dependencies POS tagging (95.71% accuracy on UD v1.2 and 95.67% accuracy on UD v1.3).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access