Reversible language extensions and their application in debugging

A range of methodologies and techniques are available to guide the design and implementation of language extensions and domainspecific languages. A simple yet powerful technique is based on source-tosource transformations interleaved across the compilation passes of a base language. Despite being a successful approach, it has the main drawback that the input source code is lost in the process. When considering the whole workflow of program development (warning and error reporting, debugging, or even program analysis), program translations are no more powerful than a glorified macro language. In this paper, we propose an augmented approach to language extensions for Prolog, where symbolic annotations are included in the target program. These annotations allow selectively reversing the translated code. We illustrate the approach by showing that coupling it with minimal extensions to a generic Prolog debugger allows us to provide users with a familiar, source-level view during the debugging of programs which use a variety of language extensions, such as functional notation, DCGs, or CLP{Q,R}.

Research on parallel logic language implementation and architecture at ICOT

Abstract is not available

Language resources and linked data: a practical perspective

Recently, experts and practitioners in language resources have started recognizing the benefits of the linked data (LD) paradigm for the representation and exploitation of linguistic data on the Web. The adoption of the LD principles is leading to an emerging ecosystem of multilingual open resources that conform to the Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud, in which datasets of linguistic data are interconnected and represented following common vocabularies, which facilitates linguistic information discovery, integration and access. In order to contribute to this initiative, this paper summarizes several key aspects of the representation of linguistic information as linked data from a practical perspective. The main goal of this document is to provide the basic ideas and tools for migrating language resources (lexicons, corpora, etc.) as LD on the Web and to develop some useful NLP tasks with them (e.g., word sense disambiguation). Such material was the basis of a tutorial imparted at the EKAW’14 conference, which is also reported in the paper.

Deployment and validation of a smart system for screening of language disorders in primary care

Neuro-evolutive development from birth until the age of six years is a decisive factor in a child?s quality of life. Early detection of development disorders in early childhood can facilitate necessary diagnosis and/or treatment. Primary-care pediatricians play a key role in its detection as they can undertake the preventive and therapeutic actions requested to promote a child?s optimal development. However, the lack of time and little specific knowledge at primary-care avoid to applying continuous early-detection anomalies procedures. This research paper focuses on the deployment and evaluation of a smart system that enhances the screening of language disorders in primary care. Pediatricians get support to proceed with early referral of language disorders. The proposed model provides them with a decision-support tool for referral actions to trigger essential diagnostic and/or therapeutic actions for a comprehensive individual development. The research was conducted by starting from a sample of 60 cases of children with language disorders. Validation was carried out through two complementary steps: first, by including a team of seven experts from the fields of neonatology, pediatrics, neurology and language therapy, and, second, through the evaluation of 21 more previously diagnosed cases. The results obtained show that therapist positively accepted the system proposal in 18 cases (86%) and suggested system redesign for single referral to a speech therapist in three remaining cases.

Automatic Understanding of ATC Speech: Study of Prospectives and Field Experiments for Several Controller Positions

Although there has been a lot of interest in recognizing and understanding air traffic control (ATC) speech, none of the published works have obtained detailed field data results. We have developed a system able to identify the language spoken and recognize and understand sentences in both Spanish and English. We also present field results for several in-tower controller positions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that field ATC speech (not simulated) is captured, processed, and analyzed. The use of stochastic grammars allows variations in the standard phraseology that appear in field data. The robust understanding algorithm developed has 95% concept accuracy from ATC text input. It also allows changes in the presentation order of the concepts and the correction of errors created by the speech recognition engine improving it by 17% and 25%, respectively, absolute in the percentage of fully correctly understood sentences for English and Spanish in relation to the percentages of fully correctly recognized sentences. The analysis of errors due to the spontaneity of the speech and its comparison to read speech is also carried out. A 96% word accuracy for read speech is reduced to 86% word accuracy for field ATC data for Spanish for the "clearances" task confirming that field data is needed to estimate the performance of a system. A literature review and a critical discussion on the possibilities of speech recognition and understanding technology applied to ATC speech are also given.

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).

Towards description and optimization of abstract machines in an extension of prolog

Competitive abstract machines for Prolog are usually large, intricate, and incorpórate sophisticated optimizations. This makes them difñcult to code, optimize, and, especially, maintain and extend. This is partly due to the fact that efñciency considerations make it necessary to use low-level languages in their implementation. Writing the abstract machine (and ancillary code) in a higher-level language can help harness this inherent complexity. In this paper we show how the semantics of basic components of an efficient virtual machine for Prolog can be described using (a variant of) Prolog which retains much of its semantics. These descriptions are then compiled to C and assembled to build a complete bytecode emulator. Thanks to the high level of the language used and its closeness to Prolog the abstract machine descriptions can be manipulated using standard Prolog compilation and optimization techniques with relative ease. We also show how, by applying program transformations selectively, we obtain abstract machine implementations whose performance can match and even exceed that of highly-tuned, hand-crafted emulators.

Independent AND-parallel implementation of narrowing

We present a parallel graph narrowing machine, which is used to implement a functional logic language on a shared memory multiprocessor. It is an extensión of an abstract machine for a purely functional language. The result is a programmed graph reduction machine which integrates the mechanisms of unification, backtracking, and independent and-parallelism. In the machine, the subexpressions of an expression can run in parallel. In the case of backtracking, the structure of an expression is used to avoid the reevaluation of subexpressions as far as possible. Deterministic computations are detected. Their results are maintained and need not be reevaluated after backtracking.

A technique for recursive invariance detection and selective program specialization

This paper presents a technique for achieving a class of optimizations related to the reduction of checks within cycles. The technique uses both Program Transformation and Abstract Interpretation. After a ñrst pass of an abstract interpreter which detects simple invariants, program transformation is used to build a hypothetical situation that simpliñes some predicates that should be executed within the cycle. This transformation implements the heuristic hypothesis that once conditional tests hold they may continué doing so recursively. Specialized versions of predicates are generated to detect and exploit those cases in which the invariance may hold. Abstract interpretation is then used again to verify the truth of such hypotheses and conñrm the proposed simpliñcation. This allows optimizations that go beyond those possible with only one pass of the abstract interpreter over the original program, as is normally the case. It also allows selective program specialization using a standard abstract interpreter not speciñcally designed for this purpose, thus simplifying the design of this already complex module of the compiler. In the paper, a class of programs amenable to such optimization is presented, along with some examples and an evaluation of the proposed techniques in some application áreas such as floundering detection and reducing run-time tests in automatic logic program parallelization. The analysis of the examples presented has been performed automatically by an implementation of the technique using existing abstract interpretation and program transformation tools.

An abstract machine based execution model for computer architecture design and efficient implementation of logic programs in parallel.

The term "Logic Programming" refers to a variety of computer languages and execution models which are based on the traditional concept of Symbolic Logic. The expressive power of these languages offers promise to be of great assistance in facing the programming challenges of present and future symbolic processing applications in Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge-based systems, and many other areas of computing. The sequential execution speed of logic programs has been greatly improved since the advent of the first interpreters. However, higher inference speeds are still required in order to meet the demands of applications such as those contemplated for next generation computer systems. The execution of logic programs in parallel is currently considered a promising strategy for attaining such inference speeds. Logic Programming in turn appears as a suitable programming paradigm for parallel architectures because of the many opportunities for parallel execution present in the implementation of logic programs. This dissertation presents an efficient parallel execution model for logic programs. The model is described from the source language level down to an "Abstract Machine" level suitable for direct implementation on existing parallel systems or for the design of special purpose parallel architectures. Few assumptions are made at the source language level and therefore the techniques developed and the general Abstract Machine design are applicable to a variety of logic (and also functional) languages. These techniques offer efficient solutions to several areas of parallel Logic Programming implementation previously considered problematic or a source of considerable overhead, such as the detection and handling of variable binding conflicts in AND-Parallelism, the specification of control and management of the execution tree, the treatment of distributed backtracking, and goal scheduling and memory management issues, etc. A parallel Abstract Machine design is offered, specifying data areas, operation, and a suitable instruction set. This design is based on extending to a parallel environment the techniques introduced by the Warren Abstract Machine, which have already made very fast and space efficient sequential systems a reality. Therefore, the model herein presented is capable of retaining sequential execution speed similar to that of high performance sequential systems, while extracting additional gains in speed by efficiently implementing parallel execution. These claims are supported by simulations of the Abstract Machine on sample programs.

ESP in Spain: goals, achievements and prospects

This paper aims to describe the development of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) as specialised language study and research at tertiary level in Spain over the past twenty years. The year 1992 is chosen as a starting point because AELFE, the Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, was founded in Madrid at the time. As more members from other countries have joined in, this Association has served as an academic landmark for the development of ESP within the umbrella of applied linguistics. ESP has reflected the social changes, educational shifts, linguistic trends, and technological innovations involved in academic and professional contexts. The evolution of the specialised language practitioner’s scenarios and communicative situations has turned ESP into a lively and stimulating action, though not lacking in controversy, e.g., a general increase in the ESP teacher’s workload. Different lines of work and research have been followed from the inception of AELFE until the implementation of the Bologna agreement in our universities. The examination of such variables is conducted in the light of some quantitative and qualitative findings.

On the dynamic adaptation of language models based on dialogue information

We present an approach to adapt dynamically the language models (LMs) used by a speech recognizer that is part of a spoken dialogue system. We have developed a grammar generation strategy that automatically adapts the LMs using the semantic information that the user provides (represented as dialogue concepts), together with the information regarding the intentions of the speaker (inferred by the dialogue manager, and represented as dialogue goals). We carry out the adaptation as a linear interpolation between a background LM, and one or more of the LMs associated to the dialogue elements (concepts or goals) addressed by the user. The interpolation weights between those models are automatically estimated on each dialogue turn, using measures such as the posterior probabilities of concepts and goals, estimated as part of the inference procedure to determine the actions to be carried out. We propose two approaches to handle the LMs related to concepts and goals. Whereas in the first one we estimate a LM for each one of them, in the second one we apply several clustering strategies to group together those elements that share some common properties, and estimate a LM for each cluster. Our evaluation shows how the system can estimate a dynamic model adapted to each dialogue turn, which helps to improve the performance of the speech recognition (up to a 14.82% of relative improvement), which leads to an improvement in both the language understanding and the dialogue management tasks.

Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology

Cognitive linguistics is considered as one of the most appropriate approaches to the study of scientific and technical language formation and development, where metaphor is accepted to play an essential role. This paper, based on the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor, takes as the starting point the terminological metaphors established in the research project METACITEC(Note 1), which was developed with the purpose of unfolding constitutive metaphors and their function in the language of science and technology. After the analysis of metaphorical terms and using a mixed corpus from the fields of Agriculture, Geology, Mining, Metallurgy, and other related technical fields, this study presents a proposal for a hierarchy of the selected metaphors underlying the scientific conceptual system, based on the semantic distance found in the projection from the source domain to the target domain. We argue that this semantic distance can be considered as an important parameter to take into account in order to establish the metaphoricity of science and technology metaphorical terms. The findings contribute to expand on the CTM stance that metaphor is a matter of cognition by reviewing the abstract-concrete conceptual relationship between the target and source domains, and to determine the role of human creativity and imagination in the language of science and technology configuration

Evaluating a web-based clinical decision support system for language disorders screening in a nursery school

Background: Early and effective identification of developmental disorders during childhood remains a critical task for the international community. The second highest prevalence of common developmental disorders in children are language delays, which are frequently the first symptoms of a possible disorder. Objective: This paper evaluates a Web-based Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) whose aim is to enhance the screening of language disorders at a nursery school. The common lack of early diagnosis of language disorders led us to deploy an easy-to-use CDSS in order to evaluate its accuracy in early detection of language pathologies. This CDSS can be used by pediatricians to support the screening of language disorders in primary care. Methods: This paper details the evaluation results of the ?Gades? CDSS at a nursery school with 146 children, 12 educators, and 1 language therapist. The methodology embraces two consecutive phases. The first stage involves the observation of each child?s language abilities, carried out by the educators, to facilitate the evaluation of language acquisition level performed by a language therapist. Next, the same language therapist evaluates the reliability of the observed results. Results: The Gades CDSS was integrated to provide the language therapist with the required clinical information. The validation process showed a global 83.6% (122/146) success rate in language evaluation and a 7% (7/94) rate of non-accepted system decisions within the range of children from 0 to 3 years old. The system helped language therapists to identify new children with potential disorders who required further evaluation. This process will revalidate the CDSS output and allow the enhancement of early detection of language disorders in children. The system does need minor refinement, since the therapists disagreed with some questions from the CDSS knowledge base (KB) and suggested adding a few questions about speech production and pragmatic abilities. The refinement of the KB will address these issues and include the requested improvements, with the support of the experts who took part in the original KB development. Conclusions: This research demonstrated the benefit of a Web-based CDSS to monitor children?s neurodevelopment via the early detection of language delays at a nursery school. Current next steps focus on the design of a model that includes pseudo auto-learning capacity, supervised by experts.

Enabling Language Resources to expose translations as linked data on the web

Language resources, such as multilingual lexica and multilingual electronic dictionaries, contain collections of lexical entries in several languages. Having access to the corresponding explicit or implicit translation relations between such entries might be of great interest for many NLP-based applications. By using Semantic Web-based techniques, translations can be available on the Web to be consumed by other (semantic enabled) resources in a direct manner, not relying on application-specific formats. To that end, in this paper we propose a model for representing translations as linked data, as an extension of the lemon model. Our translation module represents some core information associated to term translations and does not commit to specific views or translation theories. As a proof of concept, we have extracted the translations of the terms contained in Terminesp, a multilingual terminological database, and represented them as linked data. We have made them accessible on the Web both for humans (via a Web interface) and software agents (with a SPARQL endpoint).