<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="N06-1026">
  <Title>Identifying and Analyzing Judgment Opinions</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="206" end_page="206" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusion and Future Work
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, we presented a methodology for analyzing judgment opinions, which we define as opinions consisting of a valence, a holder, and a topic. We presented models for recognizing sentences containing judgment opinions, identifying the valence of the opinion, and identifying the holder of the opinion. Remaining is to also finally identify the topic of the opinion. Past tests with human annotators indicate that the accuracy of identifying valence, holder and topic is much increased when all three are being done simultaneously. We plan to investigate a joint model to verify this intuition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Our past work indicated that, for newspaper texts, it is feasible for annotators to identify judgment opinion sentences and for them to identify their holders and judgment valences. It is encouraging to see that we achieved good results on a new genre [?] emails sent from citizens to a city counsel [?] and in a new language, German.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> This paper presents a computational framework for analyzing judgment opinions. Even though these are the most common opinions, it is a pity that the research community remains unable to define belief opinions (i.e., those opinions that have values such as true, false, possible, unlikely, etc.) with high enough inter-annotator agreement. Only once we properly define belief opinion will we be capable of building a complete opinion analysis system.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>