A Maut aprroach for reusing domain ontologies on the basis of the NeOn Methodlogy

Knowledge resource reuse has become a popular approach within the ontology engineering field, mainly because it can speed up the ontology development process, saving time and money and promoting the application of good practices. The NeOn Methodology provides guidelines for reuse. These guidelines include the selection of the most appropriate knowledge resources for reuse in ontology development. This is a complex decision-making problem where different conflicting objectives, like the reuse cost, understandability, integration workload and reliability, have to be taken into account simultaneously. GMAA is a PC-based decision support system based on an additive multi-attribute utility model that is intended to allay the operational difficulties involved in the Decision Analysis methodology. The paper illustrates how it can be applied to select multimedia ontologies for reuse to develop a new ontology in the multimedia domain. It also demonstrates that the sensitivity analyses provided by GMAA are useful tools for making a final recommendation.

Developing ontologies for representing data about key performance indicators

Multiple indicators are of interest in smart cities at different scales and for different stakeholders. In open environments, such as The Web, or when indicator information has to be interchanged across systems, contextual information (e.g., unit of measurement, measurement method) should be transmitted together with the data and the lack of such information might cause undesirable effects. Describing the data by means of ontologies increases interoperability among datasets and applications. However, methodological guidance is crucial during ontology development in order to transform the art of modeling in an engineering activity. In the current paper, we present a methodological approach for modelling data about Key Performance Indicators and their context with an application example of such guidelines.

Analysis of the suitability of existing medical ontologies for building a scalable semantic interoperability solution supporting multi-site collaboration in oncology

Semantic interoperability is essential to facilitate efficient collaboration in heterogeneous multi-site healthcare environments. The deployment of a semantic interoperability solution has the potential to enable a wide range of informatics supported applications in clinical care and research both within as ingle healthcare organization and in a network of organizations. At the same time, building and deploying a semantic interoperability solution may require significant effort to carryout data transformation and to harmonize the semantics of the information in the different systems. Our approach to semantic interoperability leverages existing healthcare standards and ontologies, focusing first on specific clinical domains and key applications, and gradually expanding the solution when needed. An important objective of this work is to create a semantic link between clinical research and care environments to enable applications such as streamlining the execution of multi-centric clinical trials, including the identification of eligible patients for the trials. This paper presents an analysis of the suitability of several widely-used medical ontologies in the clinical domain: SNOMED-CT, LOINC, MedDRA, to capture the semantics of the clinical trial eligibility criteria, of the clinical trial data (e.g., Clinical Report Forms), and of the corresponding patient record data that would enable the automatic identification of eligible patients. Next to the coverage provided by the ontologies we evaluate and compare the sizes of the sets of relevant concepts and their relative frequency to estimate the cost of data transformation, of building the necessary semantic mappings, and of extending the solution to new domains. This analysis shows that our approach is both feasible and scalable.

Conservation of Computational Scientific Execution Environments for Workflow-based Experiments Using Ontologies

La reproducibilidad de estudios y resultados científicos es una meta a tener en cuenta por cualquier científico a la hora de publicar el producto de una investigación. El auge de la ciencia computacional, como una forma de llevar a cabo estudios empíricos haciendo uso de modelos matemáticos y simulaciones, ha derivado en una serie de nuevos retos con respecto a la reproducibilidad de dichos experimentos. La adopción de los flujos de trabajo como método para especificar el procedimiento científico de estos experimentos, así como las iniciativas orientadas a la conservación de los datos experimentales desarrolladas en las últimas décadas, han solucionado parcialmente este problema. Sin embargo, para afrontarlo de forma completa, la conservación y reproducibilidad del equipamiento computacional asociado a los flujos de trabajo científicos deben ser tenidas en cuenta. La amplia gama de recursos hardware y software necesarios para ejecutar un flujo de trabajo científico hace que sea necesario aportar una descripción completa detallando que recursos son necesarios y como estos deben de ser configurados. En esta tesis abordamos la reproducibilidad de los entornos de ejecución para flujos de trabajo científicos, mediante su documentación usando un modelo formal que puede ser usado para obtener un entorno equivalente. Para ello, se ha propuesto un conjunto de modelos para representar y relacionar los conceptos relevantes de dichos entornos, así como un conjunto de herramientas que hacen uso de dichos módulos para generar una descripción de la infraestructura, y un algoritmo capaz de generar una nueva especificación de entorno de ejecución a partir de dicha descripción, la cual puede ser usada para recrearlo usando técnicas de virtualización. Estas contribuciones han sido aplicadas a un conjunto representativo de experimentos científicos pertenecientes a diferentes dominios de la ciencia, exponiendo cada uno de ellos diferentes requisitos hardware y software. Los resultados obtenidos muestran la viabilidad de propuesta desarrollada, reproduciendo de forma satisfactoria los experimentos estudiados en diferentes entornos de virtualización. ABSTRACT Reproducibility of scientific studies and results is a goal that every scientist must pursuit when announcing research outcomes. The rise of computational science, as a way of conducting empirical studies by using mathematical models and simulations, have opened a new range of challenges in this context. The adoption of workflows as a way of detailing the scientific procedure of these experiments, along with the experimental data conservation initiatives that have been undertaken during last decades, have partially eased this problem. However, in order to fully address it, the conservation and reproducibility of the computational equipment related to them must be also considered. The wide range of software and hardware resources required to execute a scientific workflow implies that a comprehensive description detailing what those resources are and how they are arranged is necessary. In this thesis we address the issue of reproducibility of execution environments for scientific workflows, by documenting them in a formalized way, which can be later used to obtain and equivalent one. In order to do so, we propose a set of semantic models for representing and relating the relevant information of those environments, as well as a set of tools that uses these models for generating a description of the infrastructure, and an algorithmic process that consumes these descriptions for deriving a new execution environment specification, which can be enacted into a new equivalent one using virtualization solutions. We apply these three contributions to a set of representative scientific experiments, belonging to different scientific domains, and exposing different software and hardware requirements. The obtained results prove the feasibility of the proposed approach, by successfully reproducing the target experiments under different virtualization environments.

Strong Connectivity in Directed Hypergraphs and its Application to the Atomic Decomposition of Ontologies

Los hipergrafos dirigidos se han empleado en problemas relacionados con lógica proposicional, bases de datos relacionales, linguística computacional y aprendizaje automático. Los hipergrafos dirigidos han sido también utilizados como alternativa a los grafos (bipartitos) dirigidos para facilitar el estudio de las interacciones entre componentes de sistemas complejos que no pueden ser fácilmente modelados usando exclusivamente relaciones binarias. En este contexto, este tipo de representación es conocida como hiper-redes. Un hipergrafo dirigido es una generalización de un grafo dirigido especialmente adecuado para la representación de relaciones de muchos a muchos. Mientras que una arista en un grafo dirigido define una relación entre dos de sus nodos, una hiperarista en un hipergrafo dirigido define una relación entre dos conjuntos de sus nodos. La conexión fuerte es una relación de equivalencia que divide el conjunto de nodos de un hipergrafo dirigido en particiones y cada partición define una clase de equivalencia conocida como componente fuertemente conexo. El estudio de los componentes fuertemente conexos de un hipergrafo dirigido puede ayudar a conseguir una mejor comprensión de la estructura de este tipo de hipergrafos cuando su tamaño es considerable. En el caso de grafo dirigidos, existen algoritmos muy eficientes para el cálculo de los componentes fuertemente conexos en grafos de gran tamaño. Gracias a estos algoritmos, se ha podido averiguar que la estructura de la WWW tiene forma de “pajarita”, donde más del 70% del los nodos están distribuidos en tres grandes conjuntos y uno de ellos es un componente fuertemente conexo. Este tipo de estructura ha sido también observada en redes complejas en otras áreas como la biología. Estudios de naturaleza similar no han podido ser realizados en hipergrafos dirigidos porque no existe algoritmos capaces de calcular los componentes fuertemente conexos de este tipo de hipergrafos. En esta tesis doctoral, hemos investigado como calcular los componentes fuertemente conexos de un hipergrafo dirigido. En concreto, hemos desarrollado dos algoritmos para este problema y hemos determinado que son correctos y cuál es su complejidad computacional. Ambos algoritmos han sido evaluados empíricamente para comparar sus tiempos de ejecución. Para la evaluación, hemos producido una selección de hipergrafos dirigidos generados de forma aleatoria inspirados en modelos muy conocidos de grafos aleatorios como Erdos-Renyi, Newman-Watts-Strogatz and Barabasi-Albert. Varias optimizaciones para ambos algoritmos han sido implementadas y analizadas en la tesis. En concreto, colapsar los componentes fuertemente conexos del grafo dirigido que se puede construir eliminando ciertas hiperaristas complejas del hipergrafo dirigido original, mejora notablemente los tiempos de ejecucion de los algoritmos para varios de los hipergrafos utilizados en la evaluación. Aparte de los ejemplos de aplicación mencionados anteriormente, los hipergrafos dirigidos han sido también empleados en el área de representación de conocimiento. En concreto, este tipo de hipergrafos se han usado para el cálculo de módulos de ontologías. Una ontología puede ser definida como un conjunto de axiomas que especifican formalmente un conjunto de símbolos y sus relaciones, mientras que un modulo puede ser entendido como un subconjunto de axiomas de la ontología que recoge todo el conocimiento que almacena la ontología sobre un conjunto especifico de símbolos y sus relaciones. En la tesis nos hemos centrado solamente en módulos que han sido calculados usando la técnica de localidad sintáctica. Debido a que las ontologías pueden ser muy grandes, el cálculo de módulos puede facilitar las tareas de re-utilización y mantenimiento de dichas ontologías. Sin embargo, analizar todos los posibles módulos de una ontología es, en general, muy costoso porque el numero de módulos crece de forma exponencial con respecto al número de símbolos y de axiomas de la ontología. Afortunadamente, los axiomas de una ontología pueden ser divididos en particiones conocidas como átomos. Cada átomo representa un conjunto máximo de axiomas que siempre aparecen juntos en un modulo. La decomposición atómica de una ontología es definida como un grafo dirigido de tal forma que cada nodo del grafo corresponde con un átomo y cada arista define una dependencia entre una pareja de átomos. En esta tesis introducimos el concepto de“axiom dependency hypergraph” que generaliza el concepto de descomposición atómica de una ontología. Un modulo en una ontología correspondería con un componente conexo en este tipo de hipergrafos y un átomo de una ontología con un componente fuertemente conexo. Hemos adaptado la implementación de nuestros algoritmos para que funcionen también con axiom dependency hypergraphs y poder de esa forma calcular los átomos de una ontología. Para demostrar la viabilidad de esta idea, hemos incorporado nuestros algoritmos en una aplicación que hemos desarrollado para la extracción de módulos y la descomposición atómica de ontologías. A la aplicación la hemos llamado HyS y hemos estudiado sus tiempos de ejecución usando una selección de ontologías muy conocidas del área biomédica, la mayoría disponibles en el portal de Internet NCBO. Los resultados de la evaluación muestran que los tiempos de ejecución de HyS son mucho mejores que las aplicaciones más rápidas conocidas. ABSTRACT Directed hypergraphs are an intuitive modelling formalism that have been used in problems related to propositional logic, relational databases, computational linguistic and machine learning. Directed hypergraphs are also presented as an alternative to directed (bipartite) graphs to facilitate the study of the interactions between components of complex systems that cannot naturally be modelled as binary relations. In this context, they are known as hyper-networks. A directed hypergraph is a generalization of a directed graph suitable for representing many-to-many relationships. While an edge in a directed graph defines a relation between two nodes of the graph, a hyperedge in a directed hypergraph defines a relation between two sets of nodes. Strong-connectivity is an equivalence relation that induces a partition of the set of nodes of a directed hypergraph into strongly-connected components. These components can be collapsed into single nodes. As result, the size of the original hypergraph can significantly be reduced if the strongly-connected components have many nodes. This approach might contribute to better understand how the nodes of a hypergraph are connected, in particular when the hypergraphs are large. In the case of directed graphs, there are efficient algorithms that can be used to compute the strongly-connected components of large graphs. For instance, it has been shown that the macroscopic structure of the World Wide Web can be represented as a “bow-tie” diagram where more than 70% of the nodes are distributed into three large sets and one of these sets is a large strongly-connected component. This particular structure has been also observed in complex networks in other fields such as, e.g., biology. Similar studies cannot be conducted in a directed hypergraph because there does not exist any algorithm for computing the strongly-connected components of the hypergraph. In this thesis, we investigate ways to compute the strongly-connected components of directed hypergraphs. We present two new algorithms and we show their correctness and computational complexity. One of these algorithms is inspired by Tarjan’s algorithm for directed graphs. The second algorithm follows a simple approach to compute the stronglyconnected components. This approach is based on the fact that two nodes of a graph that are strongly-connected can also reach the same nodes. In other words, the connected component of each node is the same. Both algorithms are empirically evaluated to compare their performances. To this end, we have produced a selection of random directed hypergraphs inspired by existent and well-known random graphs models like Erd˝os-Renyi and Newman-Watts-Strogatz. Besides the application examples that we mentioned earlier, directed hypergraphs have also been employed in the field of knowledge representation. In particular, they have been used to compute the modules of an ontology. An ontology is defined as a collection of axioms that provides a formal specification of a set of terms and their relationships; and a module is a subset of an ontology that completely captures the meaning of certain terms as defined in the ontology. In particular, we focus on the modules computed using the notion of syntactic locality. As ontologies can be very large, the computation of modules facilitates the reuse and maintenance of these ontologies. Analysing all modules of an ontology, however, is in general not feasible as the number of modules grows exponentially in the number of terms and axioms of the ontology. Nevertheless, the modules can succinctly be represented using the Atomic Decomposition of an ontology. Using this representation, an ontology can be partitioned into atoms, which are maximal sets of axioms that co-occur in every module. The Atomic Decomposition is then defined as a directed graph such that each node correspond to an atom and each edge represents a dependency relation between two atoms. In this thesis, we introduce the notion of an axiom dependency hypergraph which is a generalization of the atomic decomposition of an ontology. A module in the ontology corresponds to a connected component in the hypergraph, and the atoms of the ontology to the strongly-connected components. We apply our algorithms for directed hypergraphs to axiom dependency hypergraphs and in this manner, we compute the atoms of an ontology. To demonstrate the viability of this approach, we have implemented the algorithms in the application HyS which computes the modules of ontologies and calculate their atomic decomposition. In the thesis, we provide an experimental evaluation of HyS with a selection of large and prominent biomedical ontologies, most of which are available in the NCBO Bioportal. HyS outperforms state-of-the-art implementations in the tasks of extracting modules and computing the atomic decomposition of these ontologies.

Dealing with Semantic Heterogeneity Issues on the Web

The Semantic Web is an extension of the traditional Web in which meaning of information is well defined, thus allowing a better interaction between people and computers. To accomplish its goals, mechanisms are required to make explicit the semantics of Web resources, to be automatically processed by software agents (this semantics being described by means of online ontologies). Nevertheless, issues arise caused by the semantic heterogeneity that naturally happens on the Web, namely redundancy and ambiguity. For tackling these issues, we present an approach to discover and represent, in a non-redundant way, the intended meaning of words in Web applications, while taking into account the (often unstructured) context in which they appear. To that end, we have developed novel ontology matching, clustering, and disambiguation techniques. Our work is intended to help bridge the gap between syntax and semantics for the Semantic Web construction

Essentials in Ontology Engineering: Methodologies, Languages, and Tools

In the beginning of the 90s, ontology development was similar to an art: ontology developers did not have clear guidelines on how to build ontologies but only some design criteria to be followed. Work on principles, methods and methodologies, together with supporting technologies and languages, made ontology development become an engineering discipline, the so-called Ontology Engineering. Ontology Engineering refers to the set of activities that concern the ontology development process and the ontology life cycle, the methods and methodologies for building ontologies, and the tool suites and languages that support them. Thanks to the work done in the Ontology Engineering field, the development of ontologies within and between teams has increased and improved, as well as the possibility of reusing ontologies in other developments and in final applications. Currently, ontologies are widely used in (a) Knowledge Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science, (b) applications related to knowledge management, natural language processing, e-commerce, intelligent information integration, information retrieval, database design and integration, bio-informatics, education, and (c) the Semantic Web, the Semantic Grid, and the Linked Data initiative. In this paper, we provide an overview of Ontology Engineering, mentioning the most outstanding and used methodologies, languages, and tools for building ontologies. In addition, we include some words on how all these elements can be used in the Linked Data initiative.

Towards Understanding Reasoning Complexity in Practice

Although the computational complexity of the logic underlying the standard OWL 2 for the Web Ontology Language (OWL) appears discouraging for real applications, several contributions have shown that reasoning with OWL ontologies is feasible in practice. It turns out that reasoning in practice is often far less complex than is suggested by the established theoretical complexity bound, which reflects the worstcase scenario. State-of-the reasoners like FACT++, HERMIT, PELLET and RACER have demonstrated that, even with fairly expressive fragments of OWL 2, acceptable performances can be achieved. However, it is still not well understood why reasoning is feasible in practice and it is rather unclear how to study this problem. In this paper, we suggest first steps that in our opinion could lead to a better understanding of practical complexity. We also provide and discuss some initial empirical results with HERMIT on prominent ontologies

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).

The Landscape of Ontology Reuse in Linked Data

Abstract. The uptake of Linked Data (LD) has promoted the proliferation of datasets and their associated ontologies for describing different domains. Ac-cording to LD principles, developers should reuse as many available terms as possible to describe their data. Importing ontologies or referring to their terms’ URIs are the two main ways to reuse knowledge from available ontologies. In this paper, we have analyzed 18589 terms appearing within 196 ontologies in-cluded in the Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV) registry with the aim of under-standing the current state of ontology reuse in the LD context. In order to char-acterize the landscape of ontology reuse in this context, we have extracted sta-tistics about currently reused elements, calculated ratios for reuse, and drawn graphs about imports and references between ontologies. Keywords: ontology, vocabulary, reuse, linked data, ontology import

Semantic Heterogeneity Issues on the Web

The Semantic Web is an extension of the traditional Web in which meaning of information is well defined, thus allowing a better interaction between people and computers. To accomplish its goals, mechanisms are required to make explicit the semantics of Web resources, to be automatically processed by software agents (this semantics being described by means of online ontologies). Nevertheless, issues arise caused by the semantic heterogeneity that naturally happens on the Web, namely redundancy and ambiguity. For tackling these issues, we present an approach to discover and represent, in a non-redundant way, the intended meaning of words in Web applications, while taking into account the (often unstructured) context in which they appear. To that end, we have developed novel ontology matching, clustering, and disambiguation techniques. Our work is intended to help bridge the gap between syntax and semantics for the Semantic Web construction.

Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web

Lexica and terminology databases play a vital role in many NLP applications, but currently most such resources are published in application-specific formats, or with custom access interfaces, leading to the problem that much of this data is in ‘‘data silos’’ and hence difficult to access. The Semantic Web and in particular the Linked Data initiative provide effective solutions to this problem, as well as possibilities for data reuse by inter-lexicon linking, and incorporation of data categories by dereferencable URIs. The Semantic Web focuses on the use of ontologies to describe semantics on the Web, but currently there is no standard for providing complex lexical information for such ontologies and for describing the relationship between the lexicon and the ontology. We present our model, lemon, which aims to address these gaps

datos.bne.es: A library linked dataset

We describe the datos.bne.es library dataset. The dataset makes available the authority and bibliography catalogue from the Biblioteca Nacional de España (BNE, National Library of Spain) as Linked Data. The catalogue contains around 7 million authority and bibliographic records. The records in MARC 21 format were transformed to RDF and modelled using IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations) ontologies and other well-established vocabularies such as RDA (Resource Description and Access) or the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. A tool named MARiMbA automatized the RDF generation process and the data linkage to DBpedia and other library linked data resources such as VIAF (Virtual International Authority File) or GND (Gemeinsame Normdatei, the authority dataset from the German National Library).

Using Cross-Lingual Explicit Semantic Analysis for Improving Ontology Translation

Semantic Web aims to allow machines to make inferences using the explicit conceptualisations contained in ontologies. By pointing to ontologies, Semantic Web-based applications are able to inter-operate and share common information easily. Nevertheless, multilingual semantic applications are still rare, owing to the fact that most online ontologies are monolingual in English. In order to solve this issue, techniques for ontology localisation and translation are needed. However, traditional machine translation is difficult to apply to ontologies, owing to the fact that ontology labels tend to be quite short in length and linguistically different from the free text paradigm. In this paper, we propose an approach to enhance machine translation of ontologies based on exploiting the well-structured concept descriptions contained in the ontology. In particular, our approach leverages the semantics contained in the ontology by using Cross Lingual Explicit Semantic Analysis (CLESA) for context-based disambiguation in phrase-based Statistical Machine Translation (SMT). The presented work is novel in the sense that application of CLESA in SMT has not been performed earlier to the best of our knowledge.

Did you validate your ontology? OOPS!

The application of methodologies for building ontologies can im-prove ontology quality. However, such quality is not guaranteed because of the difficulties involved in ontology modelling. These difficulties are related to the inclusion of anomalies or bad practices within the ontology development. Sev-eral authors have provided lists of typical anomalies detected in ontologies dur-ing the last decade. In this context, our aim in this paper is to describe OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!), a tool for detecting pitfalls in ontologies.