Emotions and the Engineering of Adaptiveness in Complex Systems

A major challenge in the engineering of complex and critical systems is the management of change, both in the system and in its operational environment. Due to the growing of complexity in systems, new approaches on autonomy must be able to detect critical changes and avoid their progress towards undesirable states. We are searching for methods to build systems that can tune the adaptability protocols. New mechanisms that use system-wellness requirements to reduce the influence of the outer domain and transfer the control of uncertainly to the inner one. Under the view of cognitive systems, biological emotions suggests a strategy to configure value-based systems to use semantic self-representations of the state. A method inspired by emotion theories to causally connect to the inner domain of the system and its objectives of wellness, focusing on dynamically adapting the system to avoid the progress of critical states. This method shall endow the system with a transversal mechanism to monitor its inner processes, detecting critical states and managing its adaptivity in order to maintain the wellness goals. The paper describes the current vision produced by this work-in-progress.

Emotions and the Engineering of Adaptiveness in Complex Systems

A major challenge in the engineering of complex and critical systems is the management of change, both in the system and in its operational environment. Due to the growing of complexity in systems, new approaches on autonomy must be able to detect critical changes and avoid their progress towards undesirable states. We are searching for methods to build systems that can tune the adaptability protocols. New mechanisms that use system-wellness requirements to reduce the influence of the outer domain and transfer the control of uncertainly to the inner one. Under the view of cognitive systems, biological emotions suggests a strategy to configure value-based systems to use semantic self-representations of the state. A method inspired by emotion theories to causally connect to the inner domain of the system and its objectives of wellness, focusing on dynamically adapting the system to avoid the progress of critical states. This method shall endow the system with a transversal mechanism to monitor its inner processes, detecting critical states and managing its adaptivity in order to maintain the wellness goals. The paper describes the current vision produced by this work-in-progress.

A low cost and widely applicable methodology of digital imagen analysis of ores for mineral and envirommental engineering

Technological and environmental problems related to ore processing are a serious limitation for sustainable development of mineral resources, particularly for countries / companies rich in ores, but with little access to sophisticated technology, e.g. in Latin America. Digital image analysis (DIA) can provide a simple, unexpensive and broadly applicable methodology to assess these problems, but this methodology has to be carefully defined, to produce reproducible and relevant information.

Towards the development of poly (phenylene sulphide) based nanocomposites with enhanced mechanical, electrical and tribological properties

Novel poly(phenylene sulphide) (PPS) nanocomposites reinforced with an aminated derivative (PPS-NH2) covalently attached to acid-treated single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) were prepared via simple melt-blending technique. Their morphology, viscoelastic behaviour, electrical conductivity, mechanical and tribological properties were investigated. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that the grafting process was effective in uniformly dispersing the SWCNTs within the matrix. The storage and loss moduli as a function of frequency increased with the SWCNT content, tending to a plateau in the low-frequency regime. The electrical conductivity of the nanocomposites was considerably enhanced in the range 0.1?0.5 wt% SWCNTs; electrical and rheological percolation thresholds occurred at similar nanotube concentrations. Mechanical tests demonstrated that with only 1.0 wt% SWCNTs the Young's modulus and tensile strength of the matrix improved by 51 and 37%, respectively, without decrement in toughness, ascribed to a very efficient load transfer. A moderate decrease in the friction coefficient and a 75% reduction in wear rate were found for the abovementioned nanotube loading, indicating that PPS-NH2-g-SWCNTs are good tribological additives for thermoplastic polymers. Based on the promising results obtained in this work, it is expected that these nanofillers will be used to develop high-performance thermoplastic/CNT nanocomposites for structural applications.

Combining data mining and ontology engineering to enrich ontologies and linked data

In this position paper, we claim that the need for time consuming data preparation and result interpretation tasks in knowledge discovery, as well as for costly expert consultation and consensus building activities required for ontology building can be reduced through exploiting the interplay of data mining and ontology engineering. The aim is to obtain in a semi-automatic way new knowledge from distributed data sources that can be used for inference and reasoning, as well as to guide the extraction of further knowledge from these data sources. The proposed approach is based on the creation of a novel knowledge discovery method relying on the combination, through an iterative ?feedbackloop?, of (a) data mining techniques to make emerge implicit models from data and (b) pattern-based ontology engineering to capture these models in reusable, conceptual and inferable artefacts.

Preface. The Language of Architecture and Civil Engineering

Preface

Educational Project for the Teaching of Control of Electric Traction Drives

Electric vehicles constitute a multidisciplinary subject that involves disciplines such as automotive, mechanical, electrical and control engineering. Due to this multidisciplinary technical nature, practical teaching methodologies are of special relevance. Paradoxically, in the past, the training of engineers specializing in this area has lacked the practical component represented by field tests, due to the difficulty of accessing real systems. This paper presents an educational project specifically designed for the teaching and training of engineering students with different backgrounds and experience. The teaching methodology focuses on the topology of electric traction drives and their control. It includes two stages, a simulation computer model and a scaled laboratory workbench that comprises a traction electrical drive coupled to a vehicle emulator. With this equipment, the effectiveness of different traction control strategies can be analyzed from the point of view of energy efficiency, robustness, easiness of implementation and acoustic noise.

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.

Physics and Mathematics in the Engineering Curriculum: Correlation with Applied Subjects

This paper presents a study in which the relationship between basic subjects (Mathematics and Physics) and applied engineering subjects (related to Machinery, Electrical Engineering, Topography and Buildings) in higher engineering education curricula is evaluated. The analysis has been conducted using the academic records of 206 students for five years. Furthermore, 34 surveys and personal interviews were conducted to analyze the connections between the contents taught in each subject and to identify student perceptions of the correlation with other subjects or disciplines. At the same time, the content of the different subjects have been analyzed to verify the relationship among the disciplines.Aproper coordination among subjects will allow students to relate and interconnect topics of different subjects, even with the ones learnt in previous courses, while also helping to reduce dropout rates and student failures in successfully accomplishing the different courses.

Impact And Explosive Loads On Concrete Buildings Using Shell And Beam Type Elements

The threat of impact or explosive loads is regrettably a scenario to be taken into account in the design of lifeline or critical civilian buildings. These are often made of concrete and not specifically designed for military threats. Numerical simulation of such cases may be undertaken with the aid of state of the art explicit dynamic codes, however several difficult challenges are inherent to such models: the material modeling for the concrete anisotropic failure, consideration of reinforcement bars and important structural details, adequate modeling of pressure waves from explosions in complex geometries, and efficient solution to models of complete buildings which can realistically assess failure modes. In this work we employ LS-Dyna for calculation, with Lagrangian finite elements and explicit time integration. Reinforced concrete may be represented in a fairly accurate fashion with recent models such as CSCM model [1] and segregated rebars constrained within the continuum mesh. However, such models cannot be realistically employed for complete models of large buildings, due to limitations of time and computer resources. The use of structural beam and shell elements for this purpose would be the obvious solution, with much lower computational cost. However, this modeling requires careful calibration in order to reproduce adequately the highly nonlinear response of structural concrete members, including bending with and without compression, cracking or plastic crushing, plastic deformation of reinforcement, erosion of vanished elements etc. The main objective of this work is to provide a strategy for modeling such scenarios based on structural elements, using available material models for structural elements [2] and techniques to include the reinforcement in a realistic way. These models are calibrated against fully three-dimensional models and shown to be accurate enough. At the same time they provide the basis for realistic simulation of impact and explosion on full-scale buildings

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).

Expert systems for quality prediction in structural engineering

This work deals with quality level prediction in concrete structures through the helpful assistance of an expert system wich is able to apply reasoning to this field of structural engineering. Evidences, hypotheses and factors related to this human knowledge field have been codified into a Knowledge Base in terms of probabilities for the presence of either hypotheses or evidences,and conditional presence of both. Human experts in structural engineering and safety of structures gave their invaluable knowledge and assistance necessary when constructing the "computer knowledge body".

Benchmarking for stability evaluation of computer systems

In this paper we propose a new benchmark to drive making decisions in maintenance of computer systems. This benchmark is made from load average sample data. The main goal is to improve reliability and performance of a set of devices or components. In particular, the stability of the system is measured in terms of variability of the load. A forecast of the behavior of this stability is also proposal as part of the reporting benchmark. At the final stage, a more stable system is obtained and its global reliability and performance can be then evaluated by means of appropriate specifications.

Reliability and quality in the area of statistical thinking in Engineering

There is remarkable growing concern about the quality control at the time, which has led to the search for methods capable of addressing effectively the reliability analysis as part of the Statistic. Managers, researchers and Engineers must understand that 'statistical thinking' is not just a set of statistical tools. They should start considering 'statistical thinking' from a 'system', which means, developing systems that meet specific statistical tools and other methodologies for an activity. The aim of this article is to encourage them (engineers, researchers and managers) to develop a new way of thinking.