Boot-strapping a WordNet using multiple existing WordNets
Francis Bond, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki, Kiyotaka Uchimoto
Language Infrastructure Group
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (Japan)
bond@ieee.org,{bond,isahara,kanzaki,uchimoto}@nict.go.jp
Abstract
In this paper we describe the construction of an illustrated Japanese Wordnet. We bootstrap the Wordnet using existing multiple existing
wordnets in order to deal with the ambiguity inherent in translation. We illustrate it with pictures from the Open Clip Art Library.

1. Introduction
It is rare for languages to have many freely available lexical semantic resources. In particular, few languages haveas many as English. This lack of resources slows down
both theoretical and applied research into language meaning across languages.
Consider the case for Japanese. There are at least two
excellent thesauruses available: the Japanese Synonym
Dictionary (Hamanishi and Ono, 1990) and Goi-Taikei, aJapanese Lexicon (Ikehara et al., 1997). Unfortunately, although they were both used extensively in machine translation research, the published resources focus almost entirely
on Japanese. Further, the thesauruses are proprietary, whichmakes it extremely hard to share and build on the results ofresearch using them.
To alleviate this problem, we are investigating methods toquickly and efficiently build a Japanese version of Wordnet (Fellbaum and Vossen, 2007). This wordnet is basedon the structure of the English wordnet — Japanese nearsynonyms are added to the existing English synsets. For
example, the English synset consisting of seal#n#9 “anyof numerous marine mammals that come on shore to breed;
chiefly of cold regions”1 has the following Japanese words
associated with it: ア ザ ラ シ azarashi “seal” and 海 豹azarashi “seal”.
The WordNet project at Princeton has been a resounding
success, creating a resource that is widely used in research(Fellbaum, 1998) and emulated in many languages (Vossen,1998). In order for a lexical resource to be widely adopted
it must be both accesible and usable. The Princeton WordNet is accessible due to its being released under a nonrestrictive license; and usable because it has not just precise information but also reasonable coverage, especiallyof common words.
Because of this success, there have been many projects tobuild wordnets for other languages. One of the first was
the EuroWordNet project, which built wordnets for several
European languages (Vossen, 1998). Unfortunately, mostof the wordnets are neither as accesible as the Princeton
WordNet, due to more restrictive licenses, nor as usable due
to more limited cover. Recently, the Global WordNet gridhas tried to add even more languages, making the data as
accesible as possible (Fellbaum and Vossen, 2007).
There have been several initiatives to create a Japanese
wordnet, but none of them have yet produced something
1 All examples are from WordNet 3.0.

that is both accessible and usable. Hayashi (1999) created a translation of the entire noun part of the Princeton
WordNet, including both synsets and glosses. This produced a very usable resource, but it was unfortunately not
at all accessible. Koide et al. (2006) looked at combining EDR (EDR, 1990) with Princeton WordNet, but did
not get beyond converting them both to RDF representations. Kaji and Watanabe (2006) presented a method oftranslating synsets from English to Japanese using corpus
based contexts to improve accuracy, but only tested thison a few words. More recently, Cook (2008) produced aMulti-Lingual Semantic Network by translating monosemous parts of the Princeton WordNet into Japanese, Chinese and German. He also made an interface for browsing
and amending the network. This data is accessible, as it isreleased under an open license, but loses a little on usability
as most monosemous entries are for less frequent words.
The amount of previous work shows the great interest andvalue of producing a Japanese WordNet. We therefore decided to construct one as follows: First, automatically translate the Princeton WordNet into Japanese. Second, manually check the most frequent 20,000 synsets. Third, link thesynsets to a corpus. Fourth, release the data under an open
license. As we said earlier, this WordNet is based on the
structure of the English wordnet: Japanese near synonyms
are added to the existing English synsets. Adapting it more
fully to Japanese is left to future research. More details of
the overall project are given in Isahara et al. (2008).
The obvious way to do add Japanese to the English WordNet is by translating the entries using an English-Japanesedictionary. The problem with this is that bilingual dictionaries are not marked with WordNet senses, if we look up seal
we get over 30 entries, including 判子 seal “stamp” and海軍特殊部隊 gaiguntokushubutai “Navy Seal”. We needto associate these candidates with the appropriate WordNet
senses.
Our method takes advantage of the existence of wordnets
in multiple languages, and uses them to sense disambiguate
the translations. We were able to build it quickly and efficiently using the results of existing work on building wordnets and lexicons, and we intend to make it freely available
so that other people can build on it.

2. Lexical Resources
In this section we describe the resources we have used.
Most of them are open resources.

1619

Part of
Number of Synsets
Speech English French Spanish German
Noun82,115 17,826
7,902
9,951
Verb
13,767
4,919
3,775
5,166
Adjective 18,156
0
3,879
15
Adverb
3,621
0
0
0
Total
117,659 22,745
15,55615,132

Part of
SpeechNoun
VerbAdjective
Adverb
Total

Table 1: Sizes of the Wordnets used

Number of Synsetss > 10s>1All9,243 36,432 42,725
2,991
9717 10,321
629
6,283
8,915
9
1,317
1,726
12,872 53,749 63,687

Table 3: Japanese Synsets by score2.1. Wordnets
We use four wordnets, summarized in Table 1. The largest
is the English Wordnet v3.0 (Fellbaum, 1998) with 117,659
entries. The EuroWordnets are considerably smaller, ranging from 15,132 for German up to 22,745 for French(Vossen, 1998), consisting mainly of nouns with someverbs. All of them share the same structure — a collectionof synsets joined to make a semantic network.
Because Wordnet keeps growing, both in size and complexity synsets can split up or even potentially merge across versions. The data for German was based on 1.5 and Frenchand Spanish on 1.6. We mapped them into 3.0 using the
mappings from Daude et al. (2003). When a synset mapped
to more than one synset, we simply linked it to the mosthighly weighted one.
2.2. Lexicons
We use JMDict, the Japanese→Multilingual dictionary
created by Jim Breen (Breen, 2004) for JapaneseEnglish/French/German. We did not use its proper namedictionary, as wordnet does not have a lot of names.
JMDict is widely used, and is increasing in size at therate of almost 1,000 entries a month (Bond and Breen,2007). To supplement this we also used the EDR
Japanese-English lexicon (http://www2.nict.go.
jp/r/r312/EDR/index.html) and the last downloadable version of the Japanese-English Life Science Dictionary Project (v4) (http://lsd.pharm.kyoto-u.
ac.jp/ja/index.html). For Japanese-Spanish, weused a small dictionary downloaded from http://
aulex.ohui.net/ (Goihata) and licensed under theGPL. The sizes of these lexicons are listed in Table 2.
The lexical resources, are, as always, not evenly distributed
amongst the world’s languages — Japanese-English has themost resources, followed by German, then French and then
Spanish.

3. Creating the Japanese Wordnet
The approach we are taking to build the Japanese Wordnet is the standard expand approach: “translate WordNet
synsets to another language and take over the structure”(Vossen, 2005). We did this both to keep a compatible
structure with WordNet, and because we had access to avariety of resources to make the task easier. Our main innovation is that we are using WordNets in multiple languages
to disambiguate the Japanese translations, thus providing
more reliable estimates.
Consider the following two synsets for bat, with their translation shown in Figure 1:

bat#n#1, chiropteran (nocturnal mouselike mammal
with forelimbs modified to form membranous wings...)
bat#n#5 (a club used for hitting a ball in various games)
The Japanese-English lexicon has two translations for bat
蝙 蝠 koumori “bat (mammal)” and バ ッ ト batto “bat(club)”. However, because there is no way of distinguishing between them we get a mixture of the meanings with蝙蝠 koumori “bat#n#1” and バット batto “bat#n#5”. chiropteran is not in any of the JE lexicons, and bat#n#5 has
no synonyms. Therefore using only the English Wordnet as
source and Japanese⇔English lexicons there is no way to
disambiguate them.
However, both synsets are also in the French wordnet:
bat#n#1 is chauve-souris and bat#n#5 is batte, gourdin. These are not ambiguous in the same way: chauvesouris goes only to koumori and batte only to batto. Thus, if
we can match through two languages, the mapping is much
more likely to be the correct sense. The links are shown in
Figure 1.
Similar approaches have been used to make new bilingual
dictionaries: for example, linking Japanese-Malay throughJapanese-English, English-Malay, Japanese-Chinese andChinese-Malay (Bond et al., 2001). The difference hereis that the original linking is done through the Wordnet
synsets: we are effectively trying to translate a super-synset
with synonyms in up to four languages (En, De, Fr, Es).
The actual algorithm we used was as follows:• For each synset in WordNet 3.0– Find equivalents in WN-{Fr,Es,De}– Look up translations for all equivalents {Je },{J f }, {Js }, {Jd }– Rank Japanese equivalents
score s = |links| + 10 for links in two languages
The result is a wordnet with multiple Japanese candidates
for most synsets, with a confidence score s equal to thenumber of bilingual links plus a ten-point bonus for being
linked in multiple languages.

4. Results and Evaluation
In this section we report on how many synsets we could
translate into Japanese, and with what confidence.
The results are summarized in Table 3. We have foundsome kind of translation for 63,687 out of the possible
117,007 synsets in Wordnet 3.0 (54.4%). Of these, the EuroWordnet data played a role in over 15,000 synsets. 12,872

1620

Part of
SpeechJMDict165,984
22,20916,8616,180
3225,803

Noun
Verb
Adjective
Adverb
Unknown
Total

Number of Word-Pairs
ja-en
ja-de
EDR
Lifsci JMDict
504,450 44,567 143,753
184,250
4,741
26,502
44,961 11,212
17,121
20,125
1,266
5,915
0
0
0
758,568 62,210 199,260

ja-fr
JMDict24,348
7,762
4,582
1,478
0
39,447

ja-es
Goihata
0
133
70
0
3,548
3,751

Table 2: Size and Distribution of the various Lexicons

bat#n#1

chauve-souris

Wn-Fr

J-F

bat

J-E

Wn-En

蝙蝠

chiropteran

J-E

J-E

bat#n#5
J-E

bat

バット

Wn-Fr

Wn-Fr

J-F

gourdinbatte

Figure 1: Linking with Multiple Wordnets
Part of
SpeechNoun
VerbAdjective
Adverb
Total

Number of Synsetss > 10 s > 1
All2,429 3,264 3,279
656
988
993
153
586
653
0
0
0
3,238 4,838 4,925

Base

Appropriate Translation Candidatess > 10 10 > s > 1
s=1
All55.30%
39.64% 21.25% 26.56%
Table 5: Base Noun Candidate Precision

Table 4: Base Japanese Synsets by Score (s) for the Base
Synsets
synsets had at least one translation candidate confirmed in
two or more languages, and 53,749 were confirmed in multiple lexicons.
The results restricted to the 5,000 common base synsets
which occupy central positions in the wordnet structures(Fellbaum and Vossen, 2007) are given in Table 4. In thiscase our cover is almost complete (4,925/5,000 = 98.5%).
Most of the entries in Euro WordNet are from these basesynsets, and the majority of our translations (64.6%) matchin two or more languages. Our coverage is excellent forthe base synsets, and good overall: larger than any of theexisting non-English WordNets.
To test precision, we evaluate translation candidates by
judging the suitability of all of the base synset translation
candidates (this is actually part of preparing the WordNet

for release). The results are given in Table 5. Translations
matching in multiple languages are markedly better thanthose matching in a single language (55.30% vs 21.25%),
matching in multiple dictionaries in a single language isalso an indicator of higher accuracy.
For both evaluation methods, translating synsets using multiple languages gives higher precision and lower recall.

5.

Illustrating WordNet

In order to make the sense distinctions more visible wealso semi-automatically link synsets to illustrations fromthe Open Clip Art Library (OCAL: Phillips (2005)). This
adds a new modality to the knowledge linked in the semantic net. Illustrations of concepts are useful for a variety oftasks. One is pedagogical — it is useful to have picturesin learners’ dictionaries. Another is in cross-cultural communication - for example in Pangea, where children use
pictons (small concept representing pictures) to write messages (Takasaki and Mori, 2007).

1621

We use the collection of OCAL images distributed as SVG(scalable vector graphic) images in the Ubuntu Fiesty distribution based on the OCAL release of October 2005 (v0.18). It contains 8,107 images (with some duplicates), organized in a shallow file hierarchy. Currently, some 4,000
new images have been added to the OCAL, but we have not
yet processed them.
Each image is associated with a collection of explicit metadata, including a title, description and a set of tags, all ofwhich are recommended rather than obligatory. SVG images are written in XML, the metadata is embedded withinusing the Creative Commons’ metadata standard.
We take advantage of the metadata associated with each
image to associate the image to a specific synset. The
basic idea is to look for metadata associated with a word
and its hypernym: if we can find a match of this combination in Wordnet, then we consider it a valid illustration for that synset. For example, for bat_orlando_
karam_.svg, its title is bat and it is tagged as mammal. We look in wordnet for hypernym synsets of batthat include mammal and find the following: bat#n#1⊂ placental#n#1 ⊂ mammal#n#1. Therefore, thispicture illustrates bat#n#1 rather than the other synsets
associated with the word bat
There are several sources of metadata. We first use explicit
metadata such as TITLE for the root word and TAGS forthe hypernyms. If there is no explicit metadata (which istrue for around a third of the images) or we couldn’t find amatch, then we look for implicit metadata. We take thebasename bat_orlando_karam and delete any numbers from the end. We also add directory names to the
tag list (animals/mammals/bat_orlando_karam_.svg): in this case “mammal” and “animal”. Finally, wematch the tags against each other.2
Using the tags allows us to largely solve the problem of
Image Sense Disambiguation for those pictures we identify. However, it does not solve all of the problems raised in(Alm et al., 2006), in particular the problems of depiction(is a sign with a train on it an example of train?) and partial display (is a picture of a dog’s head a good illustration
for dog or head or neither or both?).
There are 956 illustrations which match, illustrating 758
synsets. All the successful links were of nouns. Most
matches are of concrete objects, and generally of thebase synsets. The synset with the most matches issmiley#n#1 “an emoticon of a smiling face” which has
33 illustrations.
We have only linked a small subset of illustrations (936 outof 8,107 images) and an even smaller proportion of wordnet(758 out of 82,115 noun synsets). However, these figures
are better than they seem — many of the illustrations were
not suitable in the first place. And any illustrated synset also
(in theory) illustrates its hypernyms, so we have indirectly
illustrated far more than 758 synsets.
2 We do some normalization when we look words up in wordnet: if we can’t find a word as is, we then look it up downcased, without spaces, and in singular form: paint brushes →{paintbrushes, paint brush, paintbrush}.

6. Discussion
In this paper we presented a method of automatically producing a Japanese WordNet of reasonable quantity by crosschecking senses across different languages.
In future work we will manually check the most frequent
synsets, sense annotate a small corpus and release the data.
We hope it will then be used along with other projects suchas the Global Wordnet Grid (Fellbaum and Vossen, 2007)
and the Multi-lingual Semantic Network (Cook, 2008) to
produce an even more useful resource.
Our results confirm one of the advantages of the global
wordnet grid: available high quality existing resources
makes it easier to build more. Now we need to make theseresources as easily available as possible to enable even further progress. Of course, not all languages have as many
available resources as Japanese. However, bilingual lexicons are much more common than wordnets, so it makes
sense to use the more common lexical resources to bootstrap the rarer one.
An example of the complete results for the synset
tree#n#1 “a tall perennial woody plant . . . ” is given in
Figure 2. Each synset is given a name consisting of thehighest scoring Japanese match with the first English entry
for that synset, in this case “木/tree”. This is the format we
use for browsing the results of our matching.
The Japanese matches are shown in three sets: s > 10 (◎);
10 > s > 1 (○); s = 1 (●). In this case 2/3 of the top
set (◎) are good matches; the third ツリーtsurii “tree” ismainly used for Christmas trees. The middle set (○) consists soley of 木本 mokuhon “woody plant”, which is theimmediate hypernym of tree#n#1. The second memberof the last set is also good, the rest are irrelevant. The
matches for the hyponyms (hypo) are mainly good: thelower down the hierarchy the less likely words are to be
ambiguous.
We have also made a first step towards illustrating wordnet.
We expect the number of linked illustrations to grow dueto the following factors (a) more images (and better tags)
being added to the OCAL; (b) more words being added towordnet and (c) improvements in the matching algorithm.
In the long term, we would like to integrate the wordnet
linking into the Open Clip Art Language workflow, so thatnew images can be tagged as they are added to the library.
We hope that the link to definitions, examples and multilingual equivalents will provide even more motivation toartists to add accurate and detailed meta-tags.
From the point of view of the open clip art project, tagging illustrations with wordnet synsets will allow people tosearch for pictures more effectively. In particular, they can
associate the image with its synonyms and hypernyms —someone looking for pinniped or aquatic mammal could
find the image associated with seal. In addition, thanks
to the global wordnet grid, we can do this in multiple languages: bat#n#1 is linked to chauve-souris “bat” in the
French wordnet, Fledermaus “bat” in the German wordnet,
蝙蝠 koumori “bat” in the Japanese wordnet and so on.

7. Further WorkIn the immediate future we plan to hand correct more entries, and sense tag a small corpus. We plan to release1622

13104059-n --- (木/tree) ‡a tall perennial woody plant having a main trunk and branches forminga distinct elevated crown; includes both gymnosperms andangiosperms◎ 木, 樹, ツリー,
○ 木本,
● あずま屋, 樹木, 高木, 東屋, 喬木, 木物, 天然木, 四阿, 成木, シャフト,〔noun.plant - 107〕
syns: tree#n#1
hype: 木本/ligneous_planthypo: ？/yellowwood_tree ？/lancewood ？/negro_pepper ？/anise_tree ？/drimys_winteri ？
/zebrawood ？/granadilla_tree アカシア/acacia 紫檀/red_sandalwood ？/albizia ？/elephant's_ear ？/inga？/inga_edulis ？/inga_laurina ギンネム/white_popinac ？/wild_tamarind ？/nitta_tree ？/huamachil ？
/dita_bark ？/conessi ？/meryta_sinclairii 距爪/cockspur 蛸の木科/screw_pine ？/hoheria_populnea ？
/plagianthus_betulinus ？/tulipwood_tree ？/bombax_malabarica ？/montezuma ？
/pseudobombax_ellipticum ？/elaeocarpus_grandis ？/jamaican_cherry ？/break-axe ？/bottle-tree 梧桐/phoenix_tree ？/maple-leaved_bayur ？/tarrietia_argyrodendron サンバ/arere ライム/basswood ？
/silver_tree 山椒/orites_excelsa ？/stenocarpus_sinuatus ？/beefwood ？/casuarina ブナ科/beech クリ/chestnut_tree ？/oak_chestnut ？/giant_chinkapin ？/lithocarpus_densiflorus ？/southern_beech オーク/oak 樺/birch ハンノキ/alder_tree 赤四手/hornbeam ？/hop_hornbeam ？/fringe_tree 灰分/ash_tree 木犀/osmanthus_americanus ？/dhawa ？/conocarpus_erectus ？/white_mangrove 楊梅/jamaica_bayberry
樹脂状物質/pterocarpus_marsupium 紫檀/red_sandalwood ？/sabinea_carinalis ？/scarlet_wisteria_tree
槐/chinese_scholar_tree ...

msub: 白身/sapwood 心材/duramen

mprt: 株/tree_stump 頂/crown 肢/limb 幹/tree_trunk 節/burl

hmem: 森/woods

es: árbol
fr: arbre

Search for Japanese word in Synsets
Japanese Word: 言葉

Search WN

Figure 2: Example Entry for 木/tree
the manually checked subset of WordNet sometime in June
2008. Rather than have a single maintainer and major releases, we hope to maintain the WordNet as a community
resource, along the lines suggested by Charoenporn et al.
(2008). Here a wiki-like tool is used to allow people to extend and amend the WordNet, with final changes checkedby moderators. In this release, we also intend to add highconfidence automatic entries (unambiguous translations ofmonosemous words) as suggested by Cook (2008) andCharoenporn et al. (2008). This should add another 12,000
or so entries to the hand checked subset.
Currently, we have not made any new synsets for Japanesewords whose meaning does not cleanly map to an English
synset, although we know that these are necessary. As well
as extending these synstes we will also extend the information about lexical relations to include those not in the original Princeton WordNet, such as attribute-instance relations(Kanzaki et al., 2008) and explicit linking of orthographic
variants: color/colour or 蝙蝠/コウモリ koumori “bat”.
In other major extensions we are hoping to do the following:• Link the wordnet to other ontologies, such as concepts
in EDR (EDR, 1990), GoiTaikei (Ikehara et al., 1997)
and CoreNet (Choi and Bae, 2003).

• Sense tag a variety of corpora.
• Use the WordNet data as a module for Japanese in the
METEOR Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation
System (Lavie and Agarwa, 2007).

8.

Conclusions

In this paper we described the construction of the illustrated
Japanese Wordnet. We bootstrapped the Wordnet using existing wordnets and bilingual lexicons. We were able toproduce Japanese translations for 98% of the core classes,
over half of them with high confidence.

9.

References

Cecilia Ovesdotter Alm, Nicolas Loeff, and David A.
Forsyth. 2006. Challenges for annotating images forsense disambiguation. In Proceedings of the Workshop
on Frontiers in Linguistically Annotated Corpora 2006,
pages 1–4, Sydney, Australia, July. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Francis Bond and James Breen. 2007. Semi-automatic refinement of the JMdict/EDICT Japanese-English dictionary. In 13th Annual Meeting of The Association for Natural Language Processing, pages 364–367, Kyoto.

1623

Francis Bond, Ruhaida Binti Sulong, Takefumi Yamazaki,
and Kentaro Ogura. 2001. Design and construction ofa machine-tractable Japanese-Malay dictionary. In MT
Summit VIII, pages 53–58, Santiago de Compostela,
Spain.
J. W. Breen. 2004. JMDict: a Japanese-multilingual dictionary. In Coling 2004 Workshop on Multilingual Linguistic Resources, pages 71–78, Geneva.
Thatsanee Charoenporn, Virach Sornlerlamvanich,
Chumpol Mokarat, and Hitoshi Isahara. 2008. Semiautomatic compilation of Asian WordNet. In 14th
Annual Meeting of the Association for Natural Language Processing, pages 1041–1044, Tokyo.
Key-Sun Choi and Hee-Sook Bae. 2003. A KoreanJapanese-Chinese aligned wordnet with shared semantichierarchy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge
Engineering, pages 91–96.
Darren Cook. 2008. MLSN: A multi-lingual semantic network. In 14th Annual Meeting of the Association for Natural Language Processing, pages 1136–1139, Tokyo.
Jordi Daude, Lluis Padro, and German Rigau. 2003. Validation and tuning of wordnet mapping techniques. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent
Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP’03),
Borovets, Bulgaria.
EDR. 1990. Concept dictionary. Technical report, Japan
Electronic Dictionary Research Institute, Ltd, April.
Christiane Fellbaum and Piek Vossen. 2007. Connecting
the universal to the specific: Towards the global grid. In
First International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration (IWIC-2007), pages 2–16, Kyoto.
Christine Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic
Lexical Database. MIT Press.
Masando Hamanishi and Susumu Ono, editors. 1990.
Ruigo Kokugo Jiten [Japanese Synonym Dictionary].
Kadokawa Shoten, Tokyo. (in Japanese).
Yoshihiko Hayashi. 1999. Translating WordNet noun
part into Japanese for cross-language natural language
applications. In Technical Reports of SIG on Natural Language Processing NL130-10, pages 73–80. (inJapanese).
Satoru Ikehara, Masahiro Miyazaki, Satoshi Shirai, Akio
Yokoo, Hiromi Nakaiwa, Kentaro Ogura, Yoshifumi
Ooyama, and Yoshihiko Hayashi. 1997. Goi-Taikei —A Japanese Lexicon. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo. 5 volumes/CDROM.
Hitoshi Isahara, Francis Bond, Kiyotaka Uchimoto, Masao
Utiyama, and Kyoko Kanzaki. 2008. Development of
the Japanese WordNet. In Sixth international conferenceon Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008),
Marrakech. (this volume).
Hiroyuki Kaji and Mariko Watanabe. 2006. Automaticconstruction of Japanese WordNet. In Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Language Resources
and Evaluation (LREC 2006), Genoa, Italy, May.
Kyoko Kanzaki, Francis Bond, Noriko Tomuro, and Hitoshi Isahara. 2008. Extraction of attribute concepts
from Japanese adjectives. In Sixth international con-ference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2008), Marrakech. (this volume).
Seiji Koide, Takeshi Morita, Takahira Yamaguchi, Hendry
Muljadi, and Hideaki Takeda. 2006. OWL expressions
on WordNet and EDR. In AI society Semantic Web Ontology SIG 13, SIG-SWO-A601-03. (in Japanese).
Anton Lavie and Abhaya Agarwa. 2007. METEOR: An
automatic metric for MT evaluation with high levels ofcorrelation with human judgments. In Proceedings ofWorkshop on Statistical Machine Translation at ACL2007, Prague.
Jonathan Phillips. 2005. Introduction to the open clip art
library. http://rejon.org/media/writings/
ocalintro/ocal_intro_phillips.html. (accessed 2007-11-01).
Toshiyuki Takasaki and Yumiko Mori. 2007. Design anddevelopment of a pictogram communication system forchildren around the world. In First International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration (IWIC-2007), pages
144–157, Kyoto.
Piek Vossen, editor. 1998. Euro WordNet. Kluwer.
Piek
Vossen.
2005.
Building
wordnets.
http://www.globalwordnet.org/gwa/
BuildingWordnets.ppt.

1624