Evaluation and implementation of a hybrid cross-platform application combining mobile web-technologies and native device functions

Este Proyecto de Fin de Carrera presenta un prototipo de aplicación móvil híbrida multi-plataforma para Android y iOS. Las aplicaciones móviles híbridas son una combinación de aplicaciones web móviles y aplicaciones móviles nativas. Se desarrollan parcialmente con tecnologías web y pueden acceder a la capa nativa y sensores del teléfono. Para el usuario se presentan como aplicaciones nativas, ya que se pueden descargar de las tiendas de aplicaciones y son instaladas en el dispositivo. El prototipo consiste en la migración del módulo de noticias financieras de las aplicaciones actuales para móviles de una compañía bancaria reimplementándolo como aplicación híbrida utilizando uno de los entornos de desarrollo disponibles en el mercado para este propósito. El desarrollo de aplicaciones híbridas puede ahorrar tiempo y dinero cuando se pretende alcanzar más de una plataforma móvil. El objetivo es la evaluación de las ventajas e inconvenientes que ofrece el desarrollo de aplicaciones híbridas en términos de reducción de costes, tiempo de desarrollo y resultado final de la aplicación. El proyecto consta de varias fases. Durante la primera fase se realiza un estudio sobre las aplicaciones híbridas que podemos encontrar hoy en día en el mercado utilizando los ejemplos de linkedIn, Facebook y Financial times. Se hace hincapié en las tecnologías utilizadas, uso de la red móvil y problemas encontrados. Posteriormente se realiza una comparación de distintos entornos de desarrollo multi-plataforma para aplicaciones híbridas en términos de la estrategia utilizada, plataformas soportadas, lenguajes de programación, acceso a capacidades nativas de los dispositivos y licencias de uso. Esta primera fase da como resultado la elección del entorno de desarrollo más adecuado a las exigencias del proyecto, que es PhoneGap, y continua con un análisis más detallado de dicho entorno en cuanto a su arquitectura, características y componentes. La siguiente fase comienza con un estudio de las aplicaciones actuales de la compañía para extraer el código fuente necesario y adaptarlo a la arquitectura que tendrá la aplicación. Para la realización del prototipo se hace uso de la característica que ofrece PhoneGap para acceder a la capa nativa del dispositivo, esto es, el uso de plugins. Se diseña y desarrolla un plugin que permite acceder a la capa nativa para cada plataforma. Una vez desarrollado el prototipo para la plataforma Android, se migra y adapta para la plataforma iOS. Por último se hace una evaluación de los prototipos en cuanto a su facilidad y tiempo de desarrollo, rendimiento, funcionalidad y apariencia de la interfaz de usuario. ABSTRACT. This bachelor's thesis presents a prototype of a hybrid cross-platform mobile application for Android and iOS. Hybrid mobile applications are a combination of mobile web and mobile native applications. They are built partially with web technologies and they can also access native features and sensors of the device. For a user, they look like native applications as they are downloaded from the application stores and installed on the device. This prototype consists of the migration of the financial news module of current mobile applications from a financial bank reimplementing them as a hybrid application using one of the frameworks available in the market for that purpose. Development of applications on a hybrid way can help reducing costs and effort when targeting more than one platform. The target of the project is the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages that hybrid development can offer in terms of reducing costs and efforts and the final result of the application. The project starts with an analysis of successfully released hybrid applications using the examples of linkedIn, Facebook and Financial Times, emphasizing the different used technologies, the transmitted network data and the encountered problems during the development. This analysis is followed by a comparison of most popular hybrid crossplatform development frameworks in terms of the different approaches, supported platforms, programming languages, access to native features and license. This first stage has the outcome of finding the development framework that best fits to the requirements of the project, that is PhoneGap, and continues with a deeper analysis of its architecture, features and components. Next stage analyzes current company's applications to extract the needed source code and adapt it to the architecture of the prototype. For the realization of the application, the feature that PhoneGap offers to access the native layer of the device is used. This feature is called plugin. A custom plugin is designed and developed to access the native layer of each targeted platform. Once the prototype is finished for Android, it is migrated and adapted to the iOS platform. As a final conclusion the prototypes are evaluated in terms of ease and time of development, performance, functionality and look and feel.

A Web-based Support System for Providing Effective Monitoring, Feedback and Evaluation in Project Management Education

This work introduces a web-based learning environment to facilitate learning in Project Management. The proposed web-based support system integrates methodological procedures and information systems, allowing to promote learning among geographically-dispersed students. Thus, students who are enrolled in different universities at different locations and attend their own project management courses, share a virtual experience in executing and managing projects. Specific support systems were used or developed to automatically collect information about student activities, making it possible to monitor the progress made on learning and assess learning performance as established in the defined rubric.

A flexible open source web platform to facilitate Learning Object evaluation

Systematic evaluation of Learning Objects is essential to make high quality Web-based education possible. For this reason, several educational repositories and e-Learning systems have developed their own evaluation models and tools. However, the differences of the context in which Learning Objects are produced and consumed suggest that no single evaluation model is sufficient for all scenarios. Besides, no much effort has been put in developing open tools to facilitate Learning Object evaluation and use the quality information for the benefit of end users. This paper presents LOEP, an open source web platform that aims to facilitate Learning Object evaluation in different scenarios and educational settings by supporting and integrating several evaluation models and quality metrics. The work exposed in this paper shows that LOEP is capable of providing Learning Object evaluation to e-Learning systems in an open, low cost, reliable and effective way. Possible scenarios where LOEP could be used to implement quality control policies and to enhance search engines are also described. Finally, we report the results of a survey conducted among reviewers that used LOEP, showing that they perceived LOEP as a powerful and easy to use tool for evaluating Learning Objects.

OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): a web-based tool for ontology evaluation

Presentación en Workshop EUON 2014

A web-based application for the management and evaluation of tutoring requests in PBL-based massive laboratories

One important steps in a successful project-based-learning methodology (PBL) is the process of providing the students with a convenient feedback that allows them to keep on developing their projects or to improve them. However, this task is more difficult in massive courses, especially when the project deadline is close. Besides, the continuous evaluation methodology makes necessary to find ways to objectively and continuously measure students' performance without increasing excessively instructors' work load. In order to alleviate these problems, we have developed a web service that allows students to request personal tutoring assistance during the laboratory sessions by specifying the kind of problem they have and the person who could help them to solve it. This service provides tools for the staff to manage the laboratory, for performing continuous evaluation for all students and for the student collaborators, and to prioritize tutoring according to the progress of the student's project. Additionally, the application provides objective metrics which can be used at the end of the subject during the evaluation process in order to support some students' final scores. Different usability statistics and the results of a subjective evaluation with more than 330 students confirm the success of the proposed application.

Diseño e implementación de persistencia en bases de datos basadas en Google App Engine

El mundo de la web admite actualmente los productos desarrollados tanto por desarrolladores profesionales como por usuarios finales con un conocimiento más limitado. A pesar de la diferencia que se puede suponer de calidad entre los productos de ambos, las dos soluciones pueden ser reconocidas y empleadas en una aplicación. En la Web 2.0, este comportamiento se observa en el desarrollo de componentes web. Lo que se persigue en el trabajo es desarrollar un modelo de persistencia que, apoyado por un lado servidor y por uno cliente, recoja las métricas de calidad de los componentes cuando los usuarios interaccionan con ellos. A partir de estas métricas, es posible mejorar la calidad de estos componentes. La forma en la que se van a recoger las métricas es a través de PicBit, la aplicación desarrollada para que los usuarios puedan interconectar diferentes componentes entre ellos sin restricciones, de forma que tras interactuar con ellos puedan expresar su grado de satisfacción, que se recoge para la evaluación de la calidad. Se definen también unas métricas intrínsecas al componente, no determinadas por el usuario y que sirven como referencia de la evaluación. Cuando se tienen tanto las métricas intrínsecas como procedentes del usuario, se realiza una correlación entre ellas que permite analizar las posibles desviaciones entre ellas y determinar la calidad propia del componente. Las conclusiones que se pueden obtener del trabajo es que cuando los usuarios pueden realizar pruebas de usabilidad de forma libre, sin restricciones, es mayor la posibilidad de obtener resultados favorables porque estos resultados muestran cómo usará un usuario final la aplicación. Este método de trabajo se ve favorecido por el número de herramientas que se pueden utilizar hoy para monitorizar el flujo de usuario en el servicio.---ABSTRACT---Nowadays, the web world deals with products developed both by professional developers and by end-users with some limited knowledge. Although the difference between both can be important in quality terms, both are accepted and included in web applications. In web 2.0, this behavior can be recognized in the web components development. The goal pursued in the work presented is to create a persistent model that, supported by an end and a back side, will pick the quality measures of the components when the users interact with them. These measures are the starting point for improving the components. The way in which the measures are going to be picked is through PicBit, the application we have developed in order to allow the users playing with the components without restrictions or rules, so after the interaction they can give their satisfaction mark with the application. This will be the value used to evaluate the quality. Some own measures are also defined, which does not depend on the user and which will be used as a reference point of the evaluation. When the measures from users and own ones are got, their correlation is analyzed to study the differences between them and to establish the quality of the component. The conclusion that can be gained from the project is the importance of giving freedom for users when doing usability tests because it increases the chance to get positive results, in the way the users execute the operations they want with the application. This method is fortunate for having such a number of tools to monitor the user flow when using the service.

Diseño y desarrollo del backend para la explotación de componentes web empleando Google App Engine

La web vive un proceso de cambio constante, basado en una interacción mayor del usuario. A partir de la actual corriente de paradigmas y tecnologías asociadas a la web 2.0, han surgido una serie de estándares de gran utilidad, que cubre la necesidad de los desarrollos actuales de la red. Entre estos se incluyen los componentes web, etiquetas HTML definidas por el usuario que cubren una función concreta dentro de una página. Existe una necesidad de medir la calidad de dichos desarrollos, para discernir si el concepto de componente web supone un cambio revolucionario en el desarrollo de la web 2.0. Para ello, es necesario realizar una explotación de componentes web, considerada como la medición de calidad basada en métricas y definición de un modelo de interconexión de componentes. La plataforma PicBit surge como respuesta a estas cuestiones. Consiste en una plataforma social de construcción de perfiles basada en estos elementos. Desde la perspectiva del usuario final se trata de una herramienta para crear perfiles y comunidades sociales, mientras que desde una perspectiva académica, la plataforma consiste en un entorno de pruebas o sandbox de componentes web. Para ello, será necesario implementar el extremo servidor de dicha plataforma, enfocado a la labor de explotación, por medio de la definición de una interfaz REST de operaciones y un sistema para la recolección de eventos de usuario en la plataforma. Gracias a esta plataforma se podrán discernir qué parámetros influyen positivamente en la experiencia de uso de un componente, así como descubrir el futuro potencial de este tipo de desarrollos.---ABSTRACT---The web evolves into a more interactive platform. From the actual version of the web, named as web 2.0, many paradigms and standards have arisen. One of those standards is web components, a set of concepts to define new HTML tags that covers a specific function inside a web page. It is necessary to measure the quality of this kind of software development, and the aim behind this approach is to determine if this new set of concepts would survive in the actual web paradigm. To achieve this, it is described a model to analyse components, in the terms of quality measure and interconnection model description. PicBit consists of a social platform to use web components. From the point of view of the final user, this platform is a tool to create social profiles using components, whereas from the point of view of technicians, it consists of a sandbox of web components. Thanks to this platform, we will be able to discover those parameters that have a positive effect in the user experience and to discover the potential of this new set of standards into the web 2.0.

Definición, diseño e implementación de métricas de usuario final sobre componentes web en el lado Front-end, mediante Google Analytics

La web ha evolucionado hacia la participación en la creación de contenido tanto por desarrolladores expertos como por usuarios finales sin un gran conocimiento en esta área. A pesar de que su uso es igual de válido y funcional, las diferencias entre la calidad de los productos desarrollados por ambos puede llegar a ser considerable. Esta característica se observa con mayor claridad cuando se analizan los web components. El trabajo consiste en el desarrollo de un entorno capaz de recoger las métricas de calidad de los componentes, basadas en la interacción con ellos por parte de los usuarios. A partir de las métricas obtenidas, se determinará su calidad para realizar una mejora de la misma, en función de las características valoradas. La selección de las métricas se realiza mediante un estudio de las características que definen a un componente, y permiten ser analizadas. Para poder llevar a cabo la construcción del portal, se ha descrito un prototipo capaz de proporcionar un sistema para permitir que los componentes intercambien información entre ellos. El modelo ha sido integrado en los componentes que se han de evaluar para obtener nuevas métricas sobre esta característica. Se ha desarrollado un dashboard que permite la interacción sin limitaciones de los usuarios con los componentes, facilitándoles un sistema para conectar componentes, utilizando para ello el sistema previamente descrito. Como conclusión del trabajo, se puede observar la necesidad de integrar los componentes web en un entorno real para poder determinar su calidad. Debido a que la calidad está determinada por los usuarios que consumen los componentes, se ha de contar con su opinión en la cuantificación de la misma.---ABSTRACT---Recently, the web has evolved to the collaboration between professional developers and end users with limited knowledge to create web content. Although both solutions are correct and functional, the differences in the quality between them can be appreciable. This feature is shown clearly when the web components are analyzed. The work is composed of the development of a virtual environment which is able to pick the quality measures of the components, based on the interaction between these components and the user. The measures are the starting point to decide the quality, and improve them with the rated measures. The measures selection is done through a study of the main features of a component. This selection can be analyzed. In order to create the website, a prototype has been specified to provide a system in which the components can be trade information between them. The interconnection model has been integrated in the components to evaluate. A dashboard has been developed to allow users interacting with the components without rules, making them possible connecting components through the model. The main conclusion of the work is the necessity of integrating web components in a real environment to decide their quality. Due to the fact that the quality is measured in terms of the rate of the users, it is a must to give them the main roles in the establishment of that quality.

Sharing Human-Generated Observations by Integrating HMI and the Semantic Sensor Web

Current “Internet of Things” concepts point to a future where connected objects gather meaningful information about their environment and share it with other objects and people. In particular, objects embedding Human Machine Interaction (HMI), such as mobile devices and, increasingly, connected vehicles, home appliances, urban interactive infrastructures, etc., may not only be conceived as sources of sensor information, but, through interaction with their users, they can also produce highly valuable context-aware human-generated observations. We believe that the great promise offered by combining and sharing all of the different sources of information available can be realized through the integration of HMI and Semantic Sensor Web technologies. This paper presents a technological framework that harmonizes two of the most influential HMI and Sensor Web initiatives: the W3C’s Multimodal Architecture and Interfaces (MMI) and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) with its semantic extension, respectively. Although the proposed framework is general enough to be applied in a variety of connected objects integrating HMI, a particular development is presented for a connected car scenario where drivers’ observations about the traffic or their environment are shared across the Semantic Sensor Web. For implementation and evaluation purposes an on-board OSGi (Open Services Gateway Initiative) architecture was built, integrating several available HMI, Sensor Web and Semantic Web technologies. A technical performance test and a conceptual validation of the scenario with potential users are reported, with results suggesting the approach is sound

Competence Monitoring in Project Teams by using Web based portfolio management systems

This paper reports a learning experience related to the acquisition of project management competences. Students from three different universities and backgrounds, cooperate in a common project that drives the learning-teaching process. Previous related works on this initiative have already evaluated the goodness of this multidisciplinary, project-based learning approach in the context of a new educative paradigm. Yet the innovative experience has allowed the authors to define a rubric in order to measure specific competences in project management. The study shows the rubric’s main aspects as well as competence acquisition evaluation alternatives, based in the metrics defined. Key indicators and specific reports obtained from data base fields in the web tool will support this work. As a result, new competences can be assessed, such ones like teamwork, problem solving, communication and leadership. Final goal is to provide an overall competence map to the students at the same time they improve their skills.

The state of semantic technology today - overview of the first SEALS evaluation campaigns

This paper describes the first five SEALS Evaluation Campaigns over the semantic technologies covered by the SEALS project (ontology engineering tools, ontology reasoning tools, ontology matching tools, semantic search tools, and semantic web service tools). It presents the evaluations and test data used in these campaigns and the tools that participated in them along with a comparative analysis of their results. It also presents some lessons learnt after the execution of the evaluation campaigns and draws some final conclusions.

Linked Opinions: Describing Sentiments on the Structured Web of Data

In the paper we report on the results of our experiments on the construction of the opinion ontology. Our aim is to show the benefits of publishing in the open, on the Web, the results of the opinion mining process in a structured form. On the road to achieving this, we attempt to answer the research question to what extent opinion information can be formalized in a unified way. Furthermore, as part of the evaluation, we experiment with the usage of Semantic Web technologies and show particular use cases that support our claims.

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).

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

A core ontological model for semantic sensor web infrastructures

Semantic Sensor Web infrastructures use ontology-based models to represent the data that they manage; however, up to now, these ontological models do not allow representing all the characteristics of distributed, heterogeneous, and web-accessible sensor data. This paper describes a core ontological model for Semantic Sensor Web infrastructures that covers these characteristics and that has been built with a focus on reusability. This ontological model is composed of different modules that deal, on the one hand, with infrastructure data and, on the other hand, with data from a specific domain, that is, the coastal flood emergency planning domain. The paper also presents a set of guidelines, followed during the ontological model development, to satisfy a common set of requirements related to modelling domain-specific features of interest and properties. In addition, the paper includes the results obtained after an exhaustive evaluation of the developed ontologies along different aspects (i.e., vocabulary, syntax, structure, semantics, representation, and context).