<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C04-1054">
  <Title>Using knowledge from WordNet for conceptual</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Background and Motivation
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Recent studies of the use of computer-based tools for consumer health information retrieval point to a mismatch between existing tools and the non-expert language used by most consumers - the language used not only by patients but also by family members, advisors, administrators, lawyers, and so forth, and to some degree also by nurses and physicians. (Slaughter, 2002), (C. A.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Smith, et al., 2002), (Tse, 2003), (Tse and Soergel, 2003), (McCray and Tse, 2003), (Zeng, et al., in press) Where the usage of medical terms by professionals is at least in principle subject to control by standardization efforts, the highly contextually dependent usage of medical terms on the part of lay persons is much more difficult to capture in applications - and this in spite of the fact that it is in many ways simpler than expert usage. The taxonomies reflecting popular lexicalizations in all domains are indeed much less elaborate at both the upper and lower levels than in the corresponding technical lexica. (Medin and Atran, eds., 1999) Thus there are no popular terms linking infectious disease and mumps, so that in the popular medical taxonomy of diseases the former immediately subsumes the latter. The popular medical vocabulary naturally covers only a small segment of the encyclopedic vocabulary of medical professionalsm, and it lexicalizes mainly at the level of taxonomic orders. Popular medical terms (flu) are often fuzzier than technical medical terms. Many popular terms also cover a larger range of referent types than do technical terms; others may cover only part of the extension of their technical counterparts. We hypothesize, however, that with few exceptions the focal meanings (Berlin and Kay, 1969) of expert and non-expert terms will be identical. Constructing MFN and MBN allows us to test this and related hypotheses in a systematic way.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>