As part of evaluating a summary automati-cally, it is usual to determine how much of the contents of one or more human-produced “ideal” summaries it contains. Past automated methods such as ROUGE compare using fixed word ngrams, which are not ideal for a variety of reasons. In this paper we describe a framework in which summary evaluation measures can be instantiated and compared, and we implement a specific evaluation method using very small units of content, called Basic Elements that address some of the shortcomings of ngrams. This method is tested on DUC 2003, 2004, and 2005 systems and produces very good correlations with human judgments.

Recent work in several computational linguistics (CL) applications (especially question answering) has shown the value of semantics (in fact, many people argue that the current performance ceiling experienced by so many CL applications derives from their inability to perform any kind of semantic processing). But the absence of a large semantic information repository that provides representations for sentences prevents the training of statistical CL engines and thus hampers the development of such semantics-enabled applications. This talk refers to recent work in several projects that seek to annotate large volumes of text with shallower or deeper representations of some semantic phenomena. It describes one of the essential problems—creating, managing, and annotating (at large scale) the meanings of words, and outlines the Omega ontology, being built at ISI, that acts as term repository. The talk illustrates how one can proceed from words via senses to concepts, and how the annotation process can help verify good concept decisions and expose bad ones. Much of this work is performed in the context of the OntoNotes project, joint with BBN, the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania, and ISI, that is working to build a corpus of about 1M words (English, Chinese, and Arabic), annotated for shallow semantics, over the next few years.