Development of a Knowledge Base for smart screening of language disorders in primary care

Monitoring of neuro-evolutive development from birth until the age of six 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 early detection of development alterations as they can undertake the preventive and therapeutic actions necessary in the interest of a child's optimal development. The focus of this research paper is the construction of a Knowledge Base for smart screening aimed to assist pediatricians in processes of early referral in language disorders. The proposed model provides health professionals with a decision-making tool that supports referral processes. In this way, essential diagnostic and/or therapeutic actions are triggered for a comprehensive individual development. The resulting system was developed on the basis of an analysis and verification of 21 cases of children with language disorders.

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).

Enabling folksonomies for knowledge extraction: A semantic grounding approach

Folksonomies emerge as the result of the free tagging activity of a large number of users over a variety of resources. They can be considered as valuable sources from which it is possible to obtain emerging vocabularies that can be leveraged in knowledge extraction tasks. However, when it comes to understanding the meaning of tags in folksonomies, several problems mainly related to the appearance of synonymous and ambiguous tags arise, specifically in the context of multilinguality. The authors aim to turn folksonomies into knowledge structures where tag meanings are identified, and relations between them are asserted. For such purpose, they use DBpedia as a general knowledge base from which they leverage its multilingual capabilities.

Knowledge representation tool for cognitiveprocesses modeling

In the last decades, neuropsychological theories tend to consider cognitive functions as a result of the whole brainwork and not as individual local areas of its cortex. Studies based on neuroimaging techniques have increased in the last years, promoting an exponential growth of the body of knowledge about relations between cognitive functions and brain structures [1]. However, so fast evolution make complicated to integrate them in verifiable theories and, even more, translated in to cognitive rehabilitation. The aim of this research work is to develop a cognitive process-modeling tool. The purpose of this system is, in the first term, to represent multidimensional data, from structural and functional connectivity, neuroimaging, data from lesion studies and derived data from clinical intervention [2][3]. This will allow to identify consolidated knowledge, hypothesis, experimental designs, new data from ongoing studies and emerging results from clinical interventions. In the second term, we pursuit to use Artificial Intelligence to assist in decision making allowing to advance towards evidence based and personalized treatments in cognitive rehabilitation. This work presents the knowledge base design of the knowledge representation tool. It is compound of two different taxonomies (structure and function) and a set of tags linking both taxonomies at different levels of structural and functional organization. The remainder of the abstract is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the web application used for gathering necessary information for generating the knowledge base, Section 3 describes knowledge base structure and finally Section 4 expounds reached conclusions.

Towards concept identification using a knowledge-intensive approach

This paper presents a method for identifying concepts in microposts and classifying them into a predefined set of categories. The method relies on the DBpedia knowledge base to identify the types of the concepts detected in the messages. For those concepts that are not classified in the ontology we infer their types via the ontology properties which characterise the type.

Género y transporte: análisis de la movilidad del cuidado como punto de partida para construir una base de conocimiento más amplia de los patrones de movilidad. El caso de Madrid

Las limitaciones en la capacidad de movilidad pueden ser consideradas en la actualidad como una forma de discriminación tremenda y a la vez invisible dentro de la sociedad. Para poder evitar esta discriminación es necesario que las políticas de transporte, que hasta ahora han basado sus actuaciones particularmente sobre las necesidades de acceso al empleo, reconozcan las exigencias de las personas dependientes y de aquellas que realizan las tareas no remuneradas del cuidado de otros y de atención a la familia. Las personas que trabajan en las tareas domésticas, en la mayoría de los casos mujeres, tienen muchas dificultades para sincronizar sus obligaciones con los tiempos y las distancias. Estas personas desempeñan un trabajo diario, que tiene lugar tanto fuera como dentro del hogar y tienen necesidades específicas de movilidad. El problema principal es que este tipo de trabajo no suele ser tomado en consideración, ya que no entra en la esfera del trabajo remunerado. Pero es una labor que está estrictamente ligada a la actividad de la sociedad y es un elemento indispensable para el funcionamiento de la vida urbana. Es un trabajo real, que tiene lugar en el espacio urbano, que exige un considerable esfuerzo físico y emocional, y que ayuda a garantizar la calidad de la vida cotidiana. Es un aspecto indispensable a tener en cuenta en el ejercicio de las políticas públicas y sociales. Sobre la base de estas consideraciones se introduce el concepto “Movilidad del cuidado” (Sánchez de Madariaga, 2009a y 2009b), mediante el cual se reconoce la necesidad de evaluar y hacer visible los desplazamientos diarios asociados con el trabajo del cuidado. Por trabajo del cuidado se entiende el trabajo no remunerado, realizado por los adultos para los niños u otras personas dependientes, incluido el trabajo relacionado con el mantenimiento del hogar. El análisis de este tipo de viajes exige ciertos cambios significativos en las formas de recoger datos estadísticos. No se trata solo de sumar los desplazamientos que actualmente aparecen en las estadísticas como viajes de compras, acompañamiento, gestiones, cuidado de otros, etc. El problema es que los datos sobre movilidad se recogen con una serie de sesgos que infravaloran los viajes de cuidado: las estadísticas no cuentan los viajes cortos a pie y tampoco reflejan bien los viajes encadenados, ambos típicamente femeninos; no se deslindan con precisión los viajes de cuidado de otro tipo de viajes, de manera que muchos desplazamientos relacionados con la esfera reproductiva aparecen como viajes personales o de ocio y en muchos casos se encasillan en la categoría otros. Mediante esta investigación se pretende estimar el peso que la movilidad del cuidado tiene en el total de la movilidad y describirla de manera precisa en un contexto geográfico determinado, en el caso específico Madrid. Los estudios sobre el tema realizados hasta el momento reconocen la necesidad de llevar a cabo encuestas de movilidad que tengan en cuenta las variables socio económicas que caracterizan a la población y también se demanda la segregación de los datos recogidos por sexo, así como el uso del género como una categoría analítica. Igualmente es indispensable atribuir la misma importancia que tienen los viajes relacionados con la esfera productiva a los que están relacionados con la esfera reproductiva. No obstante, es solo mediante la introducción del concepto de “movilidad del cuidado” que se propone una nueva categorización de los motivos de desplazamiento dentro de las “clásicas” encuestas de movilidad y, por primera vez, mediante esta investigación se aplica este concepto a un ejemplo práctico a partir del cual queda en evidencia la necesidad de un cambio de enfoque en las políticas de transporte. Así, a través el uso de encuestas cuantitativas y cualitativas realizadas ad hoc sobre la base de la metodología propuesta, se capturan los patrones de viajes significativos para poder describir en maneara exhaustiva la movilidad de las personas que tienen responsabilidades de cuidado. El objetivo es crear una base de conocimiento más amplia sobre los patrones de movilidad, comportamientos y necesidades, además de mejorar los conceptos operacionales y establecer políticas de transporte más equitativas, que respondan de mejor manera a las necesidades de género, beneficiando así a toda la sociedad. ABSTRACT Nowadays, limitations in urban mobility can be considered as some type of extreme discrimination, which remains invisible to the society. In order to avoid this kind of discrimination, new transport policies are required, especially considering that so far they have been based and organized particularly in relation to the needs derived from the access to employment. These policies must take into account the demands of people depending on the support of others as well as of unpaid caregivers in charge of looking after other individuals and taking care of the family. Most of the people devoted to domestic work, which in the vast majority of cases is carried out by women, find it difficult to coordinate their obligations with time and distances. These people carry out a daily job that takes place both inside their homes as well as outside, and they have specific mobility needs. The main issue is that this type of work is usually not taken into consideration, since it is not included under the scope of paid employment. However, this work is strictly related to the activities of society and is therefore a crucial element in the functioning of urban life. It is an actual job that takes place in an urban space, requires a considerable amount of physical and emotional effort and guarantees quality of life on a daily basis. This is an important aspect that should be taken into account when drafting public and social policies. The concept of “Mobility of care” (Sánchez de Madariaga, 2009a and 2009b) is introduced under these considerations. This concept acknowledges the need to evaluate and identify daily movements from one place to another that are related to caregiving. Caregiving is understood, in this case, as unpaid work that is carried out by adults for children and other people that depend on the support of others, and it also includes duties related to home maintenance. The analysis of these types of movements requires some significant changes in the way in which statistic data is gathered. The idea is to not only add up the movements that appear in statistics such as shopping trips, accompanying someone, dealings, caregiving, etc. The problem with data on mobility is that it is gathered with bias that undervalues mobility related to caregiving: statistics do not take into consideration short trips that are made walking nor do they properly reflect connected trips, both of which are typically feminine; moreover, there is an imprecise differentiation of trips related to caregiving and other kind of trips, and because of that, many of the trips related to the reproductive sphere are considered personal or recreational trips, and are many times labelled as others. This investigation aims to evaluate the importance that mobility of care has in mobility in general, describing it in a precise manner within a specific geographical context that in this case is Madrid. To this date, most of the studies on this subject have acknowledged the need to carry out mobility surveys that include socio economic variables that characterize the population and they have also requested that collected data is segregated by sex and that gender is used as an analytical category. Likewise, it is fundamental to give the same importance to mobility related to the sphere of reproduction as to that related to the sphere of productiveness. However, it is only through the implementation of the concept of “mobility of care” that a new categorization of mobility, within classic mobility surveys, is proposed. Also, for the first time and by this investigation, this concept is applied to a practical case, shining a light on the need to change the focus of transport policies. Through the use of ad hoc quantitative and qualitative surveys based on the proposed methodology, the patterns of relevant movements are identified in order to thoroughly describe the mobility of people responsible of caregiving. The aim is to create a broader knowledge base on patterns of mobility, behaviour and necessities, in addition to improving functional concepts and transport policies to make them more equitable and responsive to gender needs, thus benefitting society as a whole.

Multipedia: Enriching DBpedia with Multimedia Information

Enriching knowledge bases with multimedia information makes it possible to complement textual descriptions with visual and audio information. Such complementary information can help users to understand the meaning of assertions, and in general improve the user experience with the knowledge base. In this paper we address the problem of how to enrich ontology instances with candidate images retrieved from existing Web search engines. DBpedia has evolved into a major hub in the Linked Data cloud, interconnecting millions of entities organized under a consistent ontology. Our approach taps into the Wikipedia corpus to gather context information for DBpedia instances and takes advantage of image tagging information when this is available to calculate semantic relatedness between instances and candidate images. We performed experiments with focus on the particularly challenging problem of highly ambiguous names. Both methods presented in this work outperformed the baseline. Our best method leveraged context words from Wikipedia, tags from Flickr and type information from DBpedia to achieve an average precision of 80%.

A Multi-Agent System for the Solution of Fuzzy Incidents in Telecommunications

This article presents a multi-agent expert system (SMAF) , that allows the input of incidents which occur in different elements of the telecommunications area. SMAF interacts with experts and general users, and each agent with all the agents? community, recording the incidents and their solutions in a knowledge base, without the analysis of their causes. The incidents are expressed using keywords taken from natural language (originally Spanish) and their main concepts are recorded with their severities as the users express them. Then, there is a search of the best solution for each incident, being helped by a human operator using a distancenotions between them.

A Multiagent system model which suggests solutions to fuzzy incidents in the field of telecommunications

This article presents the model of a multi-agent system (SMAF), which objectives are the input of fuzzy incidents as the human experts express them with different severities degrees and the further search and suggestion of solutions. The solutions will be later confirm or not by the users. This model was designed, implemented and tested in the telecommunications field, with heterogeneous agents in a cooperative model. In the design, different abstract levels where considered, according to the agents? objectives, their ways to carry it out and the environment in which they act. Each agent is modeled with different spectrum of the knowledge base

Solving Incidents in Telecommunications Using a Multiagent System

This article presents the model and implementation of a multiagent fuzzy system (MAFS), to automate the search of solutions of incidents in telecommunications, expressed by the users in an imprecise way and, later, registered in a a knowledge base keeping their original vaguenesses and the relationships between the incidents considered as ancestors and descendants. The process of the fuzzy incidents, no matter their causes, is based on the application of a formula which transforms the intervals of the fuzzy incidents to a computational language and in the interaction between the different kinds of software agents and the humans. To search and suggest solutions of the incident originally stated, a search algorithm is used and illustrated with an example. The preliminary results obtained show the users' satisfaction, in a great percentage of the presented cases. The system is adaptive and allows to record new solutions for future users.

Publishing Orthology and Diseases Information in the Linked Open Data Cloud

The Linked Data initiative offers a straight method to publish structured data in the World Wide Web and link it to other data, resulting in a world wide network of semantically codified data known as the Linked Open Data cloud. The size of the Linked Open Data cloud, i.e. the amount of data published using Linked Data principles, is growing exponentially, including life sciences data. However, key information for biological research is still missing in the Linked Open Data cloud. For example, the relation between orthologs genes and genetic diseases is absent, even though such information can be used for hypothesis generation regarding human diseases. The OGOLOD system, an extension of the OGO Knowledge Base, publishes orthologs/diseases information using Linked Data. This gives the scientists the ability to query the structured information in connection with other Linked Data and to discover new information related to orthologs and human diseases in the cloud.

QL-CONST1: an expert system for quality level prediction in concrete structures

Current trends in the fields of artifical intelligence and expert systems are moving towards the exciting possibility of reproducing and simulating human expertise and expert behaviour into a knowledge base, coupled with an appropriate, partially ‘intelligent’, computer code. This paper deals with the quality level prediction in concrete structures using the helpful assistance of an expert system, QL-CONST1, which is able to reason about this specific field of structural engineering. Evidence, hypotheses and factors related to this human knowledge field have been codified into a knowledge base. This knowledge base has been prepared in terms of probabilities of the presence of either hypotheses or evidence and the conditional presence of both. Human experts in the fields of structural engineering and the safety of structures gave their invaluable knowledge and assistance to the construction of the knowledge base. Some illustrative examples for, the validation of the expert system behaviour are included.

Expert systems for quality prediction in structural engineering

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

Adding semantic annotations into (Geospatial) RESTful services

In this paper the authors present an approach for the semantic annotation of RESTful services in the geospatial domain. Their approach automates some stages of the annotation process, by using a combination of resources and services: a cross-domain knowledge base like DBpedia, two domain ontologies like GeoNames and the WGS84 vocabulary, and suggestion and synonym services. The authors’ approach has been successfully evaluated with a set of geospatial RESTful services obtained from ProgrammableWeb.com, where geospatial services account for a third of the total amount of services available in this registry.

Quantity and degree assessment in an RDF.based semantic language

This paper introduces a semantic language developed with the objective to be used in a semantic analyzer based on linguistic and world knowledge. Linguistic knowledge is provided by a Combinatorial Dictionary and several sets of rules. Extra-linguistic information is stored in an Ontology. The meaning of the text is represented by means of a series of RDF-type triples of the form predicate (subject, object). Semantic analyzer is one of the options of the multifunctional ETAP-3 linguistic processor. The analyzer can be used for Information Extraction and Question Answering. We describe semantic representation of expressions that provide an assessment of the number of objects involved and/or give a quantitative evaluation of different types of attributes. We focus on the following aspects: 1) parametric and non-parametric attributes; 2) gradable and non-gradable attributes; 3) ontological representation of different classes of attributes; 4) absolute and relative quantitative assessment; 5) punctual and interval quantitative assessment; 6) intervals with precise and fuzzy boundaries