What is semantic and syntactic interoperabilty on IoT, and what is the difference between them? I am reading papers, googling etc in order to understand what is syntactic and what is semantic interoperability in IoT, and what is the difference between them, but I am really confused, either beacause my background is too poor on this field or I cannot understand the small (?) boundary between those 2 words. Can you help with an example, or anything that could help me?
Thank you...
Taking a very concrete example: LWM2M defines both a syntactical standard and adds many semantic standards on top.
The syntactical standard defines how to transfer data, i.e. how are strings, integers, floats arrays and structs are represented and transferred. This part of the standard does not care if you transfer temperature data, smart meter data, parking sensors data or whatever.
The semantical standard defines how e.g. a temperature sensor is represented. See LWM2M Registry under ID 3303 for details. You can find on that page semantic standards for different domains.
Another view to syntactical standard vs. semantical standard: JSON defines a syntactical standard, while a specific JSON Schema file defining the JSON for a temperature sensor would provide a semantic standard.
Related
If I want to train the Stanford Neural Network Dependency Parser for another language, there is a need for a "treebankLanguagePack"(TLP) but the information about this TLP is very limited:
particularities of your treebank and the language it contains
If I have my "treebank" in another language that follows the same format as PTB, and my data is using CONLL format. The dependency format follows the "Universal Dependency" UD. Do I need this TLP?
As of the current CoreNLP release, the TreebankLanguagePack is used within the dependency parser only to 1) determine the input text encoding and 2) determine which tokens count as punctuation [1].
Your best bet for a quick solution, then, is probably to stick with the UD English TreebankLanguagePack. You should do this by specifying the property language as "UniversalEnglish" (whether you're accessing the dependency parser via code or command line). If you're using the dependency parser via the CoreNLP main entry point, this property key should be depparse.language.
Technical details
Two very subtle details follow. You probably don't need to worry about these if you're just trying to hack something together at first, but it's probably good to mention so that you can avoid apocalyptic / head-smashing bugs in the future.
Evaluation and punctuation: If you do choose to stick with UniversalEnglish, be aware that there is a hack in the evaluation code that overrides the punctuation set for English parsing in particular. Any changes you make to punctuation in PennTreebankLanguagePack (the TLP used for the UniversalEnglish language) will be ignored! If you need to get around this, it should be enough to copy and paste the PennTreebankLanguagePack into your own codebase and name it something different.
Potential memory leak: When building parse results to be returned to the user, the dependency parser draws from a pool of cached GrammaticalRelation objects. This cache does not live-update. This means that if you have relations which aren't formally defined in the language you specified via the language property, they will lead to the instantiation of a new object whenever those relations show up in parser predictions. (This can be a big deal memory-wise if you happen to store the parse objects somewhere.)
[1]: Punctuation is excluded during evaluation. This is a standard "cheat" used throughout the dependency parsing literature.
I am working on developing a tool for language identification of a given text i.e. given a sample text, identify the language (for e.g. English, Swedish, German, etc.) it is written in.
Now the strategy I have decided to follow (based on a few references I have gathered) are as follows -
a) Create a character n-gram model (The value of n is decided based on certain heuristics and computations)
b) Use a machine learning classifier(such as naive bayes) to predict the language of the given text.
Now, the doubt I have is - Is creating a character N-gram model necessary. As in, what disadvantage does a simple bag of words strategy have i.e. if I use all the words possible in the respective language to create a prediction model, what could be the possible cases where it would fail.
The reason why this doubt arose was the fact that any reference document/research paper I've come across states that language identification is a very difficult task. However, just using this strategy of using the words in the language seems to be a simple task.
EDIT: One reason why N-gram should be preferred is to make the model robust even if there are typos as stated here. Can anyone point out more?
if I use all the words possible in the respective language to create a prediction model, what could be the possible cases where it would fail
Pretty much the same cases were a character n-gram model would fail. The problem is that you're not going to find appropriate statistics for all possible words.(*) Character n-gram statistics are easier to accumulate and more robust, even for text without typos: words in a language tend to follow the same spelling patterns. E.g. had you not found statistics for the Dutch word "uitbuiken" (a pretty rare word), then the occurrence of the n-grams "uit", "bui" and "uik" would still be strong indicators of this being Dutch.
(*) In agglutinative languages such as Turkish, new words can be formed by stringing morphemes together and the number of possible words is immense. Check the first few chapters of Jurafsky and Martin, or any undergraduate linguistics text, for interesting discussions on the possible number of words per language.
Cavnar and Trenkle proposed a very simple yet efficient approach using character n-grams of variable length. Maybe you should try to implement it first and move to a more complex ML approach if C&T approach doesn't meet your requirements.
Basically, the idea is to build a language model using only the X (e.g. X = 300) most frequent n-grams of variable length (e.g. 1 <= N <= 5). Doing so, you are very likely to capture most functional words/morphemes of the considered language... without any prior linguistic knowledge on that language!
Why would you choose character n-grams over a BoW approach? I think the notion of character n-gram is pretty straightforward and apply to every written language. Word, is a much much complex notion which greatly differ from one language to another (consider languages with almost no spacing marks).
Reference: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/TextCat/textcat.pdf
The performance really depends on your expected input. If you will be classifying multi-paragraph text all in one language, a functional words list (which your "bag of words" with pruning of hapaxes will quickly approximate) might well serve you perfectly, and could work better than n-grams.
There is significant overlap between individual words -- "of" could be Dutch or English; "and" is very common in English but also means "duck" in the Scandinavian languages, etc. But given enough input data, overlaps for individual stop words will not confuse your algorithm very often.
My anecdotal evidence is from using libtextcat on the Reuters multilingual newswire corpus. Many of the telegrams contain a lot of proper names, loan words etc. which throw off the n-gram classifier a lot of the time; whereas just examining the stop words would (in my humble estimation) produce much more stable results.
On the other hand, if you need to identify short, telegraphic utterances which might not be in your dictionary, a dictionary-based approach is obviously flawed. Note that many North European languages have very productive word formation by free compounding -- you see words like "tandborstställbrist" and "yhdyssanatauti" being coined left and right (and Finnish has agglutination on top -- "yhdyssanataudittomienkinkohan") which simply cannot be expected to be in a dictionary until somebody decides to use them.
I've studied some simple semantic network implementations and basic techniques for parsing natural language. However, I haven't seen many projects that try and bridge the gap between the two.
For example, consider the dialog:
"the man has a hat"
"he has a coat"
"what does he have?" => "a hat and coat"
A simple semantic network, based on the grammar tree parsing of the above sentences, might look like:
the_man = Entity('the man')
has = Entity('has')
a_hat = Entity('a hat')
a_coat = Entity('a coat')
Relation(the_man, has, a_hat)
Relation(the_man, has, a_coat)
print the_man.relations(has) => ['a hat', 'a coat']
However, this implementation assumes the prior knowledge that the text segments "the man" and "he" refer to the same network entity.
How would you design a system that "learns" these relationships between segments of a semantic network? I'm used to thinking about ML/NL problems based on creating a simple training set of attribute/value pairs, and feeding it to a classification or regression algorithm, but I'm having trouble formulating this problem that way.
Ultimately, it seems I would need to overlay probabilities on top of the semantic network, but that would drastically complicate an implementation. Is there any prior art along these lines? I've looked at a few libaries, like NLTK and OpenNLP, and while they have decent tools to handle symbolic logic and parse natural language, neither seems to have any kind of proabablilstic framework for converting one to the other.
There is quite a lot of history behind this kind of task. Your best start is probably by looking at Question Answering.
The general advice I always give is that if you have some highly restricted domain where you know about all the things that might be mentioned and all the ways they interact then you can probably be quite successful. If this is more of an 'open-world' problem then it will be extremely difficult to come up with something that works acceptably.
The task of extracting relationship from natural language is called 'relationship extraction' (funnily enough) and sometimes fact extraction. This is a pretty large field of research, this guy did a PhD thesis on it, as have many others. There are a large number of challenges here, as you've noticed, like entity detection, anaphora resolution, etc. This means that there will probably be a lot of 'noise' in the entities and relationships you extract.
As for representing facts that have been extracted in a knowledge base, most people tend not to use a probabilistic framework. At the simplest level, entities and relationships are stored as triples in a flat table. Another approach is to use an ontology to add structure and allow reasoning over the facts. This makes the knowledge base vastly more useful, but adds a lot of scalability issues. As for adding probabilities, I know of the Prowl project that is aimed at creating a probabilistic ontology, but it doesn't look very mature to me.
There is some research into probabilistic relational modelling, mostly into Markov Logic Networks at the University of Washington and Probabilstic Relational Models at Stanford and other places. I'm a little out of touch with the field, but this is is a difficult problem and it's all early-stage research as far as I know. There are a lot of issues, mostly around efficient and scalable inference.
All in all, it's a good idea and a very sensible thing to want to do. However, it's also very difficult to achieve. If you want to look at a slick example of the state of the art, (i.e. what is possible with a bunch of people and money) maybe check out PowerSet.
Interesting question, I've been doing some work on a strongly-typed NLP engine in C#: http://blog.abodit.com/2010/02/a-strongly-typed-natural-language-engine-c-nlp/ and have recently begun to connect it to an ontology store.
To me it looks like the issue here is really: How do you parse the natural language input to figure out that 'He' is the same thing as "the man"? By the time it's in the Semantic Network it's too late: you've lost the fact that statement 2 followed statement 1 and the ambiguity in statement 2 can be resolved using statement 1. Adding a third relation after the fact to say that "He" and "the man" are the same is another option but you still need to understand the sequence of those assertions.
Most NLP parsers seem to focus on parsing single sentences or large blocks of text but less frequently on handling conversations. In my own NLP engine there's a conversation history which allows one sentence to be understood in the context of all the sentences that came before it (and also the parsed, strongly-typed objects that they referred to). So the way I would handle this is to realize that "He" is ambiguous in the current sentence and then look back to try to figure out who the last male person was that was mentioned.
In the case of my home for example, it might tell you that you missed a call from a number that's not in its database. You can type "It was John Smith" and it can figure out that "It" means the call that was just mentioned to you. But if you typed "Tag it as Party Music" right after the call it would still resolve to the song that's currently playing because the house is looking back for something that is ITaggable.
I'm not exactly sure if this is what you want, but take a look at natural language generation wikipedia, the "reverse" of parsing, constructing derivations that conform to the given semantical constraints.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a college student getting my Computer Science degree. A lot of my fellow students really haven't done a lot of programming. They've done their class assignments, but let's be honest here those questions don't really teach you how to program.
I have had several other students ask me questions about how to parse things, and I'm never quite sure how to explain it to them. Is it best to start just going line by line looking for substrings, or just give them the more complicated lecture about using proper lexical analysis, etc. to create tokens, use BNF, and all of that other stuff? They never quite understand it when I try to explain it.
What's the best approach to explain this without confusing them or discouraging them from actually trying.
I'd explain parsing as the process of turning some kind of data into another kind of data.
In practice, for me this is almost always turning a string, or binary data, into a data structure inside my Program.
For example, turning
":Nick!User#Host PRIVMSG #channel :Hello!"
into (C)
struct irc_line {
char *nick;
char *user;
char *host;
char *command;
char **arguments;
char *message;
} sample = { "Nick", "User", "Host", "PRIVMSG", { "#channel" }, "Hello!" }
Parsing is the process of analyzing text made of a sequence of tokens to determine its grammatical structure with respect to a given (more or less) formal grammar.
The parser then builds a data structure based on the tokens. This data structure can then be used by a compiler, interpreter or translator to create an executable program or library.
(source: wikimedia.org)
If I gave you an english sentence, and asked you to break down the sentence into its parts of speech (nouns, verbs, etc.), you would be parsing the sentence.
That's the simplest explanation of parsing I can think of.
That said, parsing is a non-trivial computational problem. You have to start with simple examples, and work your way up to the more complex.
What is parsing?
In computer science, parsing is the process of analysing text to determine if it belongs to a specific language or not (i.e. is syntactically valid for that language's grammar). It is an informal name for the syntactic analysis process.
For example, suppose the language a^n b^n (which means same number of characters A followed by the same number of characters B). A parser for that language would accept AABB input and reject the AAAB input. That is what a parser does.
In addition, during this process a data structure could be created for further processing. In my previous example, it could, for instance, to store the AA and BB in two separate stacks.
Anything that happens after it, like giving meaning to AA or BB, or transform it in something else, is not parsing. Giving meaning to parts of an input sequence of tokens is called semantic analysis.
What isn't parsing?
Parsing is not transform one thing into another. Transforming A into B, is, in essence, what a compiler does. Compiling takes several steps, parsing is only one of them.
Parsing is not extracting meaning from a text. That is semantic analysis, a step of the compiling process.
What is the simplest way to understand it?
I think the best way for understanding the parsing concept is to begin with the simpler concepts. The simplest one in language processing subject is the finite automaton. It is a formalism to parsing regular languages, such as regular expressions.
It is very simple, you have an input, a set of states and a set of transitions. Consider the following language built over the alphabet { A, B }, L = { w | w starts with 'AA' or 'BB' as substring }. The automaton below represents a possible parser for that language whose all valid words starts with 'AA' or 'BB'.
A-->(q1)--A-->(qf)
/
(q0)
\
B-->(q2)--B-->(qf)
It is a very simple parser for that language. You start at (q0), the initial state, then you read a symbol from the input, if it is A then you move to (q1) state, otherwise (it is a B, remember the remember the alphabet is only A and B) you move to (q2) state and so on. If you reach (qf) state, then the input was accepted.
As it is visual, you only need a pencil and a piece of paper to explain what a parser is to anyone, including a child. I think the simplicity is what makes the automata the most suitable way to teaching language processing concepts, such as parsing.
Finally, being a Computer Science student, you will study such concepts in-deep at theoretical computer science classes such as Formal Languages and Theory of Computation.
Have them try to write a program that can evaluate arbitrary simple arithmetic expressions. This is a simple problem to understand but as you start getting deeper into it a lot of basic parsing starts to make sense.
Parsing is about READING data in one format, so that you can use it to your needs.
I think you need to teach them to think like this. So, this is the simplest way I can think of to explain parsing for someone new to this concept.
Generally, we try to parse data one line at a time because generally it is easier for humans to think this way, dividing and conquering, and also easier to code.
We call field to every minimum undivisible data. Name is field, Age is another field, and Surname is another field. For example.
In a line, we can have various fields. In order to distinguish them, we can delimit fields by separators or by the maximum length assign to each field.
For example:
By separating fields by comma
Paul,20,Jones
Or by space (Name can have 20 letters max, age up to 3 digits, Jones up to 20 letters)
Paul 020Jones
Any of the before set of fields is called a record.
To separate between a delimited field record we need to delimit record. A dot will be enough (though you know you can apply CR/LF).
A list could be:
Michael,39,Jordan.Shaquille,40,O'neal.Lebron,24,James.
or with CR/LF
Michael,39,Jordan
Shaquille,40,O'neal
Lebron,24,James
You can say them to list 10 nba (or nlf) players they like. Then, they should type them according to a format. Then make a program to parse it and display each record. One group, can make list in a comma-separated format and a program to parse a list in a fixed size format, and viceversa.
Parsing to me is breaking down something into meaningful parts... using a definable or predefined known, common set of part "definitions".
For programming languages there would be keyword parts, usable punctuation sequences...
For pumpkin pie it might be something like the crust, filling and toppings.
For written languages there might be what a word is, a sentence, what a verb is...
For spoken languages it might be tone, volume, mood, implication, emotion, context
Syntax analysis (as well as common sense after all) would tell if what your are parsing is a pumpkinpie or a programming language. Does it have crust? well maybe it's pumpkin pudding or perhaps a spoken language !
One thing to note about parsing stuff is there are usually many ways to break things into parts.
For example you could break up a pumpkin pie by cutting it from the center to the edge or from the bottom to the top or with a scoop to get the filling out or by using a sledge hammer or eating it.
And how you parse things would determine if doing something with those parts will be easy or hard.
In the "computer languages" world, there are common ways to parse text source code. These common methods (algorithims) have titles or names. Search the Internet for common methods/names for ways to parse languages. Wikipedia can help in this regard.
In linguistics, to divide language into small components that can be analyzed. For example, parsing this sentence would involve dividing it into words and phrases and identifying the type of each component (e.g.,verb, adjective, or noun).
Parsing is a very important part of many computer science disciplines. For example, compilers must parse source code to be able to translate it into object code. Likewise, any application that processes complex commands must be able to parse the commands. This includes virtually all end-user applications.
Parsing is often divided into lexical analysis and semantic parsing. Lexical analysis concentrates on dividing strings into components, called tokens, based on punctuationand other keys. Semantic parsing then attempts to determine the meaning of the string.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/parse.html
Simple explanation: Parsing is breaking a block of data into smaller pieces (tokens) by following a set of rules (using delimiters for example),
so that this data could be processes piece by piece (managed, analysed, interpreted, transmitted, ets).
Examples: Many applications (like Spreadsheet programs) use CSV (Comma Separated Values) file format to import and export data. CSV format makes it possible for the applications to process this data with a help of a special parser.
Web browsers have special parsers for HTML and CSS files. JSON parsers exist. All special file formats must have some parsers designed specifically for them.
Parsec is designed to parse textual information, but it occurs to me that Parsec could also be suitable to do binary file format parsing for complex formats that involve conditional segments, out-of-order segments, etc.
Is there an ability to do this or a similar, alternative package that does this? If not, what is the best way in Haskell to parse binary file formats?
The key tools for parsing binary files are:
Data.Binary
cereal
attoparsec
Binary is the most general solution, Cereal can be great for limited data sizes, and attoparsec is perfectly fine for e.g. packet parsing. All of these are aimed at very high performance, unlike Parsec. There are many examples on hackage as well.
You might be interested in AttoParsec, which was designed for this purpose, I think.
I've used Data Binary successfully.
It works fine, though you might want to use Parsec 3, Attoparsec, or Iteratees. Parsec's reliance on String as its intermediate representation may bloat your memory footprint quite a bit, whereas the others can be configured to use ByteStrings.
Iteratees are particularly attractive because it is easier to ensure they won't hold onto the beginning of your input and can be fed chunks of data incrementally a they come available. This prevents you from having to read the entire input into memory in advance and lets you avoid other nasty workarounds like lazy IO.
The best approach depends on the format of the binary file.
Many binary formats are designed to make parsing easy (unlike text formats that are primarily to be read by humans). So any union data type will be preceded by a discriminator that tells you what type to expect, all fields are either fixed length or preceded by a length field, and so on. For this kind of data I would recommend Data.Binary; typically you create a matching Haskell data type for each type in the file, and then make each of those types an instance of Binary. Define the "get" method for reading; it returns a "Get" monad action which is basically a very simple parser. You will also need to define a "put" method.
On the other hand if your binary data doesn't fit into this kind of world then you will need attoparsec. I've never used that, so I can't comment further, but this blog post is very positive.