An Introductory Course on Constraint Logic Programming

The purpose of this document is to serve as the printed material for the seminar "An Introductory Course on Constraint Logic Programming". The intended audience of this seminar are industrial programmers with a degree in Computer Science but little previous experience with constraint programming. The seminar itself has been field tested, prior to the writing of this document, with a group of the application programmers of Esprit project P23182, "VOCAL", aimed at developing an application in scheduling of field maintenance tasks in the context of an electric utility company. The contents of this paper follow essentially the flow of the seminar slides. However, there are some differences. These differences stem from our perception from the experience of teaching the seminar, that the technical aspects are the ones which need more attention and clearer explanations in the written version. Thus, this document includes more examples than those in the slides, more exercises (and the solutions to them), as well as four additional programming projects, with which we hope the reader will obtain a clearer view of the process of development and tuning of programs using CLP. On the other hand, several parts of the seminar have been taken out: those related with the account of fields and applications in which C(L)P is useful, and the enumerations of C(L)P tools available. We feel that the slides are clear enough, and that for more information on available tools, the interested reader will find more up-to-date information by browsing the Web or asking the vendors directly. More details in this direction will actually boil down to summarizing a user manual, which is not the aim of this document.

Survey and brain storming studies about machines, constructions, human and environmental risk consideration in the careers of the Universidad Politécnica of Madrid

The Universidad Politécnica of Madrid (UPM) includes schools and faculties that were for engineering degrees, architecture and computer science, that are now in a quick EEES Bolonia Plan metamorphosis getting into degrees, masters and doctorate structures. They are focused towards action in machines, constructions, enterprises, that are subjected to machines, human and environment created risks. These are present in actions such as use loads, wind, snow, waves, flows, earthquakes, forces and effects in machines, vehicles behavior, chemical effects, and other environmental factors including effects of crops, cattle and beasts, forests, and varied essential economic and social disturbances. Emphasis is for authors in this session more about risks of natural origin, such as for hail, winds, snow or waves that are not exactly known a priori, but that are often considered with statistical expected distributions giving extreme values for convenient return periods. These distributions are known from measures in time, statistic of extremes and models about hazard scenarios and about responses of man made constructions or devices. In each engineering field theories were built about hazards scenarios and how to cover for important risks. Engineers must get that the systems they handle, such as vehicles, machines, firms or agro lands or forests, obtain production with enough safety for persons and with decent economic results in spite of risks. For that risks must be considered in planning, in realization and in operation, and safety margins must be taken but at a reasonable cost. That is a small level of risks will often remain, due to limitations in costs or because of due to strange hazards, and maybe they will be covered by insurance in cases such as in transport with cars, ships or aircrafts, in agro for hail, or for fire in houses or in forests. These and other decisions about quality, security for men or about business financial risks are sometimes considered with Decision Theories models, using often tools from Statistics or operational Research. The authors have done and are following field surveys about risk consideration in the careers in UPM, making deep analysis of curricula taking into account the new structures of degrees in the EEES Bolonia Plan, and they have considered the risk structures offered by diverse schools of Decision theories. That gives an aspect of the needs and uses, and recommendations about improving in the teaching about risk, that may include special subjects especially oriented for each career, school or faculty, so as to be recommended to be included into the curricula, including an elaboration and presentation format using a multi-criteria decision model.

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

Semantic middleware development for the Internet of Things

After the extraordinary spread of the World Wide Web during the last fifteen years, engineers and developers are pushing now the Internet to its next border. A new conception in computer science and networks communication has been burgeoning during roughly the last decade: a world where most of the computers of the future will be extremely downsized, to the point that they will look like dust at its most advanced prototypes. In this vision, every single element of our “real” world has an intelligent tag that carries all their relevant data, effectively mapping the “real” world into a “virtual” one, where all the electronically augmented objects are present, can interact among them and influence with their behaviour that of the other objects, or even the behaviour of a final human user. This is the vision of the Internet of the Future, which also draws ideas of several novel tendencies in computer science and networking, as pervasive computing and the Internet of Things. As it has happened before, materializing a new paradigm that changes the way entities interrelate in this new environment has proved to be a goal full of challenges in the way. Right now the situation is exciting, with a plethora of new developments, proposals and models sprouting every time, often in an uncoordinated, decentralised manner away from any standardization, resembling somehow the status quo of the first developments of advanced computer networking, back in the 60s and the 70s. Usually, a system designed after the Internet of the Future will consist of one or several final user devices attached to these final users, a network –often a Wireless Sensor Network- charged with the task of collecting data for the final user devices, and sometimes a base station sending the data for its further processing to less hardware-constrained computers. When implementing a system designed with the Internet of the Future as a pattern, issues, and more specifically, limitations, that must be faced are numerous: lack of standards for platforms and protocols, processing bottlenecks, low battery lifetime, etc. One of the main objectives of this project is presenting a functional model of how a system based on the paradigms linked to the Internet of the Future works, overcoming some of the difficulties that can be expected and showing a model for a middleware architecture specifically designed for a pervasive, ubiquitous system. This Final Degree Dissertation is divided into several parts. Beginning with an Introduction to the main topics and concepts of this new model, a State of the Art is offered so as to provide a technological background. After that, an example of a semantic and service-oriented middleware is shown; later, a system built by means of this semantic and service-oriented middleware, and other components, is developed, justifying its placement in a particular scenario, describing it and analysing the data obtained from it. Finally, the conclusions inferred from this system and future works that would be good to be tackled are mentioned as well. RESUMEN Tras el extraordinario desarrollo de la Web durante los últimos quince años, ingenieros y desarrolladores empujan Internet hacia su siguiente frontera. Una nueva concepción en la computación y la comunicación a través de las redes ha estado floreciendo durante la última década; un mundo donde la mayoría de los ordenadores del futuro serán extremadamente reducidas de tamaño, hasta el punto que parecerán polvo en sus más avanzado prototipos. En esta visión, cada uno de los elementos de nuestro mundo “real” tiene una etiqueta inteligente que porta sus datos relevantes, mapeando de manera efectiva el mundo “real” en uno “virtual”, donde todos los objetos electrónicamente aumentados están presentes, pueden interactuar entre ellos e influenciar con su comportamiento el de los otros, o incluso el comportamiento del usuario final humano. Ésta es la visión del Internet del Futuro, que también toma ideas de varias tendencias nuevas en las ciencias de la computación y las redes de ordenadores, como la computación omnipresente y el Internet de las Cosas. Como ha sucedido antes, materializar un nuevo paradigma que cambia la manera en que las entidades se interrelacionan en este nuevo entorno ha demostrado ser una meta llena de retos en el camino. Ahora mismo la situación es emocionante, con una plétora de nuevos desarrollos, propuestas y modelos brotando todo el rato, a menudo de una manera descoordinada y descentralizada lejos de cualquier estandarización, recordando de alguna manera el estado de cosas de los primeros desarrollos de redes de ordenadores avanzadas, allá por los años 60 y 70. Normalmente, un sistema diseñado con el Internet del futuro como modelo consistirá en uno o varios dispositivos para usuario final sujetos a estos usuarios finales, una red –a menudo, una red de sensores inalámbricos- encargada de recolectar datos para los dispositivos de usuario final, y a veces una estación base enviando los datos para su consiguiente procesado en ordenadores menos limitados en hardware. Al implementar un sistema diseñado con el Internet del futuro como patrón, los problemas, y más específicamente, las limitaciones que deben enfrentarse son numerosas: falta de estándares para plataformas y protocolos, cuellos de botella en el procesado, bajo tiempo de vida de las baterías, etc. Uno de los principales objetivos de este Proyecto Fin de Carrera es presentar un modelo funcional de cómo trabaja un sistema basado en los paradigmas relacionados al Internet del futuro, superando algunas de las dificultades que pueden esperarse y mostrando un modelo de una arquitectura middleware específicamente diseñado para un sistema omnipresente y ubicuo. Este Proyecto Fin de Carrera está dividido en varias partes. Empezando por una introducción a los principales temas y conceptos de este modelo, un estado del arte es ofrecido para proveer un trasfondo tecnológico. Después de eso, se muestra un ejemplo de middleware semántico orientado a servicios; después, se desarrolla un sistema construido por medio de este middleware semántico orientado a servicios, justificando su localización en un escenario particular, describiéndolo y analizando los datos obtenidos de él. Finalmente, las conclusiones extraídas de este sistema y las futuras tareas que sería bueno tratar también son mencionadas.

Reusable Knowledge-based Components for Building Software Applications: A Knowledge Modelling Approach

In computer science, different types of reusable components for building software applications were proposed as a direct consequence of the emergence of new software programming paradigms. The success of these components for building applications depends on factors such as the flexibility in their combination or the facility for their selection in centralised or distributed environments such as internet. In this article, we propose a general type of reusable component, called primitive of representation, inspired by a knowledge-based approach that can promote reusability. The proposal can be understood as a generalisation of existing partial solutions that is applicable to both software and knowledge engineering for the development of hybrid applications that integrate conventional and knowledge based techniques. The article presents the structure and use of the component and describes our recent experience in the development of real-world applications based on this approach.

An efficient, parametric fixpoint algorithm for analysis of java bytecode

Abstract interpretation has been widely used for the analysis of object-oriented languages and, in particular, Java source and bytecode. However, while most existing work deals with the problem of flnding expressive abstract domains that track accurately the characteristics of a particular concrete property, the underlying flxpoint algorithms have received comparatively less attention. In fact, many existing (abstract interpretation based—) flxpoint algorithms rely on relatively inefHcient techniques for solving inter-procedural caligraphs or are speciflc and tied to particular analyses. We also argüe that the design of an efficient fixpoint algorithm is pivotal to supporting the analysis of large programs. In this paper we introduce a novel algorithm for analysis of Java bytecode which includes a number of optimizations in order to reduce the number of iterations. The algorithm is parametric -in the sense that it is independent of the abstract domain used and it can be applied to different domains as "plug-ins"-, multivariant, and flow-sensitive. Also, is based on a program transformation, prior to the analysis, that results in a highly uniform representation of all the features in the language and therefore simplifies analysis. Detailed descriptions of decompilation solutions are given and discussed with an example. We also provide some performance data from a preliminary implementation of the analysis.

Some issues in analysis and specialization of modular ciao-prolog programs

Separating programs into modules is a well-known technique which has proven very useful in program development and maintenance. Starting by introducing a number of possible scenarios, in this paper we study different issues which appear when developing analysis and specialization techniques for modular logic programming. We discuss a number of design alternatives and their consequences for the different scenarios considered and describe where applicable the decisions made in the Ciao system analyzer and specializer. In our discussion we use the module system of Ciao Prolog. This is both for concreteness and because Ciao Prolog is a second-generation Prolog system which has been designed with global analysis and specialization in mind, and which has a strict module system. The aim of this work is not to provide a theoretical basis on modular analysis and specialization, but rather to discuss some interesting practical issues.

The ciao module system: A new module system for prolog

Ciao Prolog incorporates a module system which allows sepárate compilation and sensible creation of standalone executables. We describe some of the main aspects of the Ciao modular compiler, ciaoc, which takes advantage of the characteristics of the Ciao Prolog module system to automatically perform sepárate and incremental compilation and efficiently build small, standalone executables with competitive run-time performance, ciaoc can also detect statically a larger number of programming errors. We also present a generic code processing library for handling modular programs, which provides an important part of the functionality of ciaoc. This library allows the development of program analysis and transformation tools in a way that is to some extent orthogonal to the details of module system design, and has been used in the implementation of ciaoc and other Ciao system tools. We also describe the different types of executables which can be generated by the Ciao compiler, which offer different tradeoffs between executable size, startup time, and portability, depending, among other factors, on the linking regime used (static, dynamic, lazy, etc.). Finally, we provide experimental data which illustrate these tradeoffs.

The ciao modular, standalone compiler and its generic program processing library

Ciao Prolog incorporates a module system which allows sepárate compilation and sensible creation of standalone executables. We describe some of the main aspects of the Ciao modular compiler, ciaoc, which takes advantage of the characteristics of the Ciao Prolog module system to automatically perform sepárate and incremental compilation and efficiently build small, standalone executables with competitive run-time performance, ciaoc can also detect statically a larger number of programming errors. We also present a generic code processing library for handling modular programs, which provides an important part of the functionality of ciaoc. This library allows the development of program analysis and transformation tools in a way that is to some extent orthogonal to the details of module system design, and has been used in the implementation of ciaoc and other Ciao system tools. We also describe the different types of executables which can be generated by the Ciao compiler, which offer different tradeoffs between executable size, startup time, and portability, depending, among other factors, on the linking regime used (static, dynamic, lazy, etc.). Finally, we provide experimental data which illustrate these tradeoffs.

A system for automatically generating documentation for (C)LP programs

We describe lpdoc, a tool which generates documentation manuals automatically from one or more logic program source files, written in ISO-Prolog, Ciao, and other (C)LP languages. It is particularly useful for documenting library modules, for which it automatically generates a rich description of the module interface. However, it can also be used quite successfully to document full applications. A fundamental advantage of using lpdoc is that it helps maintaining a true correspondence between the program and its documentation, and also identifying precisely to what version of the program a given printed manual corresponds. The quality of the documentation generated can be greatly enhanced by including within the program text assertions (declarations with types, modes, etc.) for the predicates in the program, and machine-readable comments. One of the main novelties of lpdoc is that these assertions and comments are written using the Ciao system assertion language, which is also the language of communication between the compiler and the user and between the components of the compiler. This allows a significant synergy among specification, documentation, optimization, etc. A simple compatibility library allows conventional (C)LP systems to ignore these assertions and comments and treat normally programs documented in this way. The documentation can be generated in many formats including texinfo, dvi, ps, pdf, info, html/css, Unix nroff/man, Windows help, etc., and can include bibliographic citations and images. lpdoc can also generate “man” pages (Unix man page format), nicely formatted plain ascii “readme” files, installation scripts useful when the manuals are included in software distributions, brief descriptions in html/css or info formats suitable for inclusion in on-line indices of manuals, and even complete WWW and info sites containing on-line catalogs of documents and software distributions. The lpdoc manual, all other Ciao system manuals, and parts of this paper are generated by lpdoc.

A survey of agent-oriented methodologies

This article introduces the current agent-oriented methodologies. It discusses what approaches have been followed (mainly extending existing object oriented and knowledge engineering methodologies), the suitability of these approaches for agent modelling, and some conclusions drawn from the survey.

A Metadirectory of Web Components for Mashup Composition

Because of the growing availability of third-party APIs, services, widgets and any other reusable web component, mashup developers now face a vast amount of candidate components for their developments. Moreover, these components quite often are scattered in many different repositories and web sites, which makes difficult their selection or discovery. In this paper, we discuss the problem of component selection in Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA) and Mashup-Driven Development, and introduce the Linked Mashups Ontology (LiMOn), a model that allows describing mashups and their components for integrating and sharing mashup information such as categorization or dependencies. The model has allowed the building of an integrated, centralized metadirectory of web components for query and selection, which has served to evaluate the model. The metadirectory allows accessing various heterogeneous repositories of mashups and web components while using external information from the Linked Data cloud, helping mashup development.

Supporting End-User Development through a New Composition Model: An Empirical Study

End-user development (EUD) is much hyped, and its impact has outstripped even the most optimistic forecasts. Even so, the vision of end users programming their own solutions has not yet materialized. This will continue to be so unless we in both industry and the research community set ourselves the ambitious challenge of devising end to end an end-user application development model for developing a new age of EUD tools. We have embarked on this venture, and this paper presents the main insights and outcomes of our research and development efforts as part of a number of successful EU research projects. Our proposal not only aims to reshape software engineering to meet the needs of EUD but also to refashion its components as solution building blocks instead of programs and software developments. This way, end users will really be empowered to build solutions based on artefacts akin to their expertise and understanding of ideal solutions

Probabilistic reasoning with a bayesian DNA device based on strand displacement

We present a computing model based on the DNA strand displacement technique which performs Bayesian inference. The model will take single stranded DNA as input data, representing the presence or absence of a specific molecular signal (evidence). The program logic encodes the prior probability of a disease and the conditional probability of a signal given the disease playing with a set of different DNA complexes and their ratios. When the input and program molecules interact, they release a different pair of single stranded DNA species whose relative proportion represents the application of Bayes? Law: the conditional probability of the disease given the signal. The models presented in this paper can empower the application of probabilistic reasoning in genetic diagnosis in vitro.

UER technique: conceptualisation for agent oriented development

The problem of conceptualisation is the first step towards the identication of the functional requirements of a system. This article proposes two extensions of well-known object oriented techniques: UER (User-Environment-Responsibility) technique and enhanced CRC (Class-ResponsibilityCollaboration) cards. UER technique consists of (a) looking for the users of systems and describing the ways the system is used; (b) looking for the objects of the environment and describing the possible interactions; and (c) looking for the general requirements or goals of the system, the actions that it should carry out without explicit interaction. The enhanced CRC cards together with the internal use cases technique is used for dening collaborations between agents. These techniques can be easily integrated in UML (Unied Modelling Language) [2], dening the new notation symbols as stereotypes.