Design of a twin capacitive load and its application to the outdoor rating of photovoltaic modules

This paper describes the design of an original twin capacitive load that is able of tracing simultaneously the I?V characteristics of two photovoltaic modules. Besides, an example of the application of this dual system to the outdoor rating of photovoltaic modules is presented, whose results have shown a good degree of repeatability.

Design, development and construction of an outdoor testing facility for semi-transparent photovoltaic modules

Building-integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) is one of the most promising technologies enabling buildings to generate on-site part of their electricity needs while performing architectural functionalities. A clear example of BIPV products consists of semi-transparent photovoltaic modules (STPV), designed to replace the conventional glazing solutions in building façades. Accordingly, the active building envelope is required to perform multiple requirements such as provide solar shading to avoid overheating, supply solar gains and thermal insulation to reduce heat loads and improve daylight utilization. To date, various studies into STPV systems have focused on their energy performance based on existing simulation programs, or on the modelling, normally validated by limited experimental data, of the STPV modules thermal behaviour. Taking into account that very limited experimental research has been conducted on the energy performance of STPV elements and that the characterization in real operation conditions is necessary to promote an energetically efficient integration of this technology in the building envelope, an outdoor testing facility has been designed, developed and built at the Solar Energy Institute of the Technical University of Madrid. In this work, the methodology used in the definition of the testing facility, its capability and limitations are presented and discussed.

Cooperative Task Execution between Modular Robots Based on Tight-Loose Cooperation Strategies

The complexity in the execution of cooperative tasks is high due to the fact that a robot team requires movement coordination at the beginning of the mission and continuous coordination during the execution of the task. A variety of techniques have been proposed to give a solution to this problem assuming standard mobile robots. This work focuses on presenting the execution of a cooperative task by a modular robot team. The complexity of the task execution increases due to the fact that each robot is composed of modules which have to be coordinated in a proper way to successfully work. A combined tight and loose cooperation strategy is presented and a bar-pushing example is used as a cooperative task to show the performance of this type of system.

Progresos en sub-sistemas RF y control de la Antena Adaptativa Multihaz GEODA

GEODA project started in 2006 as a complex and ambitious project in the smart antenna field. GEODA is a multiple planar array smart antenna working at 1.7 GHz designed to receive and automatically track several LEO satellite signals simultaneously [1-4]. GEODA evolved to GEODA-GRUA since transmission capabilities were given to the original idea [5-6], so that radiofrequency sub-systems had to be re-designed and digital management subsystem modified accordingly. In this paper, improvements in the reception/transmission (T/R) modules as well as in the Control Subsystem are presented, keeping the original radiating element.

Analysis of the information about Doctoral Degrees presented in the Spanish universities websites.

Globalization has intensified competition, as evidenced by the growing number of international classification systems (rankings) and the attention paid to them. Doctoral education has an international character in itself. It should promote opportunities for graduate students lo participate in these international studies. The quality and competitiveness are two of the most important issues for universities. To promote the interest of graduates to continue their education after the graduate level, it would be necessary to improve the published information of ihe doctoral programs. It should increase the visibility and provide high-quality, easily accessible and comparable information which includes all the relevant aspects of these programs. The authors analysed the website contents of doctoral programs, it was observed a lack of quality of them and very poor information about the contents, so that it was decided that any of them could constitute a model for creating new websites. The recommendations on the format and contents in the web were made by a discussion group. They recommended an attractive design; a page with easy access to contents and easy to find on Ihe net and with the information in more than one language. It should include complete program and academic staff information. It should also be included the study's results which should be easily accessible and includes quantitative data, such as number of students who completed scholars, publications, research projects, average duration of the studies, etc. It will facilitate the choice of program

Multibeam Network Design and Measurement for Triangular Array of Three Radiating Elements

Nowadays, more a more base stations are equipped with active conformal antennas. These antenna designs combine phase shift systems with multibeam networks providing multi-beam ability and interference rejection, which optimize multiple channel systems. GEODA is a conformal adaptive antenna system designed for satellite communications. Operating at 1.7 GHz with circular polarization, it is possible to track and communicate with several satellites at once thanks to its adaptive beam. The antenna is based on a set of similar triangular arrays that are divided in subarrays of three elements called `cells'. Transmission/Receiver (T/R) modules manage beam steering by shifting the phases. A more accurate steering of the antenna GEODA could be achieved by using a multibeam network. Several multibeam network designs based on Butler network will be presented

Towards 35% Efficient Concentrator Modules Based On LPI Köhler Concentrators With External Confinement Cavities

Multijunction solar cells present a certain reflectivity on its surface that lowers its light absorption. This reflectivity produces a loss in electrical efficiency and thus a loss in global energy production for CPV systems. We present here an optical design for recovering this portion of reflected light, and thus leading to a system efficiency increase. This new design is based on an external confinement cavity, an optical element able to redirect the light reflected by the cell towards its surface again. We have proven the excellent performance of these cavities integrated in CPV modules offering outstanding results: 33.2% module electrical efficiency @Tcell  =  25 °C and relative efficiency and Isc gains of over 6%

Stability and Transient Performance Assessment in a COTS-Module-Based Distributed DC/DC System

This paper introduces a method to analyze and predict stability and transient performance of a distributed system where COTS (Commercial-off-the-shelf) modules share an input filter. The presented procedure is based on the measured data from the input and output terminals of the power modules. The required information for the analysis is obtained by performing frequency response measurements for each converter. This attained data is utilized to compute special transfer functions, which partly determine the source and load interactions within the converters. The system level dynamic description is constructed based on the measured and computed transfer functions introducing cross-coupling mechanisms within the system. System stability can be studied based on the well-known impedance- related minor-loop gain at an arbitrary interface within the system.

Scalable software architecture for on-line multi-camera video processing

In this paper we present a scalable software architecture for on-line multi-camera video processing, that guarantees a good trade off between computational power, scalability and flexibility. The software system is modular and its main blocks are the Processing Units (PUs), and the Central Unit. The Central Unit works as a supervisor of the running PUs and each PU manages the acquisition phase and the processing phase. Furthermore, an approach to easily parallelize the desired processing application has been presented. In this paper, as case study, we apply the proposed software architecture to a multi-camera system in order to efficiently manage multiple 2D object detection modules in a real-time scenario. System performance has been evaluated under different load conditions such as number of cameras and image sizes. The results show that the software architecture scales well with the number of camera and can easily works with different image formats respecting the real time constraints. Moreover, the parallelization approach can be used in order to speed up the processing tasks with a low level of overhead

Catadioptric panoramic stereovision for humanoid robots

This paper proposes a novel design of a reconfigurable humanoid robot head, based on biological likeness of human being so that the humanoid robot could agreeably interact with people in various everyday tasks. The proposed humanoid head has a modular and adaptive structural design and is equipped with three main components: frame, neck motion system and omnidirectional stereovision system modules. The omnidirectional stereovision system module being the last module, a motivating contribution with regard to other computer vision systems implemented in former humanoids, it opens new research possibilities for achieving human-like behaviour. A proposal for a real-time catadioptric stereovision system is presented, including stereo geometry for rectifying the system configuration and depth estimation. The methodology for an initial approach for visual servoing tasks is divided into two phases, first related to the robust detection of moving objects, their depth estimation and position calculation, and second the development of attention-based control strategies. Perception capabilities provided allow the extraction of 3D information from a wide range of visions from uncontrolled dynamic environments, and work results are illustrated through a number of experiments.

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).

Characterization of thin film PV modules under standard test conditions: Results of indoor and outdoor measurements and the effects of sunlight exposure

Photovoltaic modules based on thin film technology are gaining importance in the photovoltaic market, and module installers and plant owners have increasingly begun to request methods of performing module quality control. These modules pose additional problems for measuring power under standard test conditions (STC), beyond problems caused by the temperature of the module and the ambient variables. The main difficulty is that the modules’ power rates may vary depending both on the amount of time they have been exposed to the sun during recent hours and on their history of sunlight exposure. In order to assess the current state of the module, it is necessary to know its sunlight exposure history. Thus, an easily accomplishable testing method that ensures the repeatability of the measurements of the power generated is needed. This paper examines different tests performed on commercial thin film PV modules of CIS, a-Si and CdTe technologies in order to find the best way to obtain measurements. A method for obtaining indoor measurements of these technologies that takes into account periods of sunlight exposure is proposed. Special attention is paid to CdTe as a fast growing technology in the market.

Hiord: A type-free higher-order logic programming language with predicate abstraction

A new formalism, called Hiord, for defining type-free higherorder logic programming languages with predicate abstraction is introduced. A model theory, based on partial combinatory algebras, is presented, with respect to which the formalism is shown sound. A programming language built on a subset of Hiord, and its implementation are discussed. A new proposal for defining modules in this framework is considered, along with several examples.

A generic preprocessor for program validation and debugging

We present a generic preprocessor for combined static/dynamic validation and debugging of constraint logic programs. Passing programs through the preprocessor prior to execution allows detecting many bugs automatically. This is achieved by performing a repertoire of tests which range from simple syntactic checks to much more advanced checks based on static analysis of the program. Together with the program, the user may provide a series of assertions which trigger further automatic checking of the program. Such assertions are written using the assertion language presented in Chapter 2, which allows expressing a wide variety of properties. These properties extend beyond the predefined set which may be understandable by the available static analyzers and include properties defined by means of user programs. In addition to user-provided assertions, in each particular CLP system assertions may be available for predefined system predicates. Checking of both user-provided assertions and assertions for system predicates is attempted first at compile-time by comparing them with the results of static analysis. This may allow statically proving that the assertions hold (Le., they are validated) or that they are violated (and thus bugs detected). User-provided assertions (or parts of assertions) which cannot be statically proved ñor disproved are optionally translated into run-time tests. The implementation of the preprocessor is generic in that it can be easily customized to different CLP systems and dialects and in that it is designed to allow the integration of additional analyses in a simple way. We also report on two tools which are instances of the generic preprocessor: CiaoPP (for the Ciao Prolog system) and CHIPRE (for the CHIP CLP(FL>) system). The currently existing analyses include types, modes, non-failure, determinacy, and computational cost, and can treat modules separately, performing incremental analysis.

Implementing distributed concurrent constraint execution in the CIAO system

This paper describes the current prototype of the distributed CIAO system. It introduces the concepts of "teams" and "active modules" (or active objects), which conveniently encapsulate different types of functionalities desirable from a distributed system, from parallelism for achieving speedup to client-server applications. The user primitives available are presented and their implementation described. This implementation uses attributed variables and, as an example of a communication abstraction, a blackboard that follows the Linda model. Finally, the CIAO WWW interface is also briefly described. The unctionalities of the system are illustrated through examples, using the implemented primitives.