Educational activities for a gamified system

The objective of this dissertation is to analyze, design, and implement an activity module for a larger educational platform with the use of gamification techniques with the purpose to improve learning, pass rates, and feedback. The project investigates how to better incentivize student learning. A software requirement specification was delineated to establish the system guidelines and behavior. Following, a definition of the activities in the module was created. This definition encompassed a detailed description of each activity, together with elements that compose it, available customizations and the involved formulas. The activity high-level design process includes the design of the defined activities by use of the software methodology UWE (UML-based Web Engineering) for their future implementation, modeling requirements, content, navigation and presentation. The low-level design is composed of the database schema and types and the relating EER (Enhanced Entity-Relationship) diagram. After this, the implementation of the designed module began, together with testing in the later stages. We expect that by using the implemented activity module, students will become more interested in learning, as well as more engaged in the process, resulting in a continuous progress during the course.---RESUMEN---El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar, diseñar e implementar un módulo de actividades didácticas que formará parte de una plataforma educativa, haciendo uso de técnicas de gamificación con la finalidad de mejorar el aprendizaje, ratio de aprobados y retroalimentación para los alumnos. El proyecto investiga como incentivar mejor el aprendizaje estudiantil. Se trazó una especificación de requisitos de software para establecer las pautas del sistema y su comportamiento. A continuación, se definieron las actividades del módulo. Esta definición abarca una descripción detallada de cada actividad, junto a los elementos que la componen, las configuraciones disponibles y las formulas involucradas. El proceso de diseño de alto nivel incluye el diseño de las actividades definidas usando la metodología de software UWE (UML-based Web Engineering) para su futura implementación, requisitos de modelaje, contenido, navegación y presentación. El diseño de bajo nivel está compuesto por el esquema y tipos de la base de datos y el diagrama de entidad-relación correspondiente. Tras esto se realizó la implementación y pruebas de parte del sistema. Se espera que usando el módulo de actividades implementado, los estudiantes muestren un mayor interés por aprender, así como estar más involucrados en el proceso, resultando en un progreso más continuo durante el curso.

Diseño de una metodología CASE de desarrollo de software

En la actualidad existe una gran expectación ante la introducción de nuevas herramientas y métodos para el desarrollo de productos software, que permitirán en un futuro próximo un planteamiento de ingeniería del proceso de producción software. Las nuevas metodologías que empiezan a esbozarse suponen un enfoque integral del problema abarcando todas las fases del esquema productivo. Sin embargo el grado de automatización conseguido en el proceso de construcción de sistemas es muy bajo y éste está centrado en las últimas fases del ciclo de vida del software, consiguiéndose así una reducción poco significativa de sus costes y, lo que es aún más importante, sin garantizar la calidad de los productos software obtenidos. Esta tesis define una metodología de desarrollo software estructurada que se puede automatizar, es decir una metodología CASE. La metodología que se presenta se ajusta al modelo de ciclo de desarrollo CASE, que consta de las fases de análisis, diseño y pruebas; siendo su ámbito de aplicación los sistemas de información. Se establecen inicialmente los principios básicos sobre los que la metodología CASE se asienta. Posteriormente, y puesto que la metodología se inicia con la fijación de los objetivos de la empresa que demanda un sistema informático, se emplean técnicas que sirvan de recogida y validación de la información, que proporcionan a la vez un lenguaje de comunicación fácil entre usuarios finales e informáticos. Además, estas mismas técnicas detallarán de una manera completa, consistente y sin ambigüedad todos los requisitos del sistema. Asimismo, se presentan un conjunto de técnicas y algoritmos para conseguir que desde la especificación de requisitos del sistema se logre una automatización tanto del diseño lógico del Modelo de Procesos como del Modelo de Datos, validados ambos conforme a la especificación de requisitos previa. Por último se definen unos procedimientos formales que indican el conjunto de actividades a realizar en el proceso de construcción y cómo llevarlas a cabo, consiguiendo de esta manera una integridad en las distintas etapas del proceso de desarrollo.---ABSTRACT---Nowdays there is a great expectation with regard to the introduction of new tools and methods for the software products development that, in the very near future will allow, an engineering approach in the software development process. New methodologies, just emerging, imply an integral approach to the problem, including all the productive scheme stages. However, the automatization degree obtained in the systems construction process is very low and focused on the last phases of the software lifecycle, which means that the costs reduction obtained is irrelevant and, which is more important, the quality of the software products is not guaranteed. This thesis defines an structured software development methodology that can be automated, that is a CASE methodology. Such a methodology is adapted to the CASE development cycle-model, which consists in analysis, design and testing phases, being the information systems its field of application. Firstly, we present the basic principies on which CASE methodology is based. Secondly, since the methodology starts from fixing the objectives of the company demanding the automatization system, we use some techniques that are useful for gathering and validating the information, being at the same time an easy communication language between end-users and developers. Indeed, these same techniques will detail completely, consistently and non ambiguously all the system requirements. Likewise, a set of techniques and algorithms are shown in order to obtain, from the system requirements specification, an automatization of the Process Model logical design, and of the Data Model logical design. Those two models are validated according to the previous requirement specification. Finally, we define several formal procedures that suggest which set of activities to be accomplished in the construction process, and how to carry them out, getting in this way integrity and completness for the different stages of the development process.

Engineering privacy requirements valuable lessons from another realm

The Privacy by Design approach to systems engineering introduces privacy requirements in the early stages of development, instead of patching up a built system afterwards. However, 'vague', 'disconnected from technology', or 'aspirational' are some terms employed nowadays to refer to the privacy principles which must lead the development process. Although privacy has become a first-class citizen in the realm of non-functional requirements and some methodological frameworks help developers by providing design guidance, software engineers often miss a solid reference detailing which specific, technical requirements they must abide by, and a systematic methodology to follow. In this position paper, we look into a domain that has already successfully tackled these problems -web accessibility-, and propose translating their findings into the realm of privacy requirements engineering, analyzing as well the gaps not yet covered by current privacy initiatives.

Identifying Moderator Variables Through Requirements Elicitation Experiments Limitations

Interviews are the most widely used elicitation technique in Requirements Engineering (RE). Despite its importance, research in interviews is quite limited, in particular from an experimental perspective. We have performed a series of experiments exploring the relative effectiveness of structured and unstructured interviews. This line of research has been active in Information Systems in the past years, so that our experiments can be aggregated together with existing ones to obtain guidelines for practice. Experimental aggregation is a demanding task. It requires not only a large number of experiments, but also considering the influence of the existing moderators. However, in the current state of the practice in RE, those moderators are unknown. We believe that analyzing the threats to validity in interviewing experiments may give insight about how to improve further replications and the corresponding aggregations. It is likely that this strategy may be applied in other Software Engineering areas as well.

Desarrollo de un proceso de normalización semántica de bases de datos en ensayos clínicos

El trabajo se enmarca dentro de los proyecto INTEGRATE y EURECA, cuyo objetivo es el desarrollo de una capa de interoperabilidad semántica que permita la integración de datos e investigación clínica, proporcionando una plataforma común que pueda ser integrada en diferentes instituciones clínicas y que facilite el intercambio de información entre las mismas. De esta manera se promueve la mejora de la práctica clínica a través de la cooperación entre instituciones de investigación con objetivos comunes. En los proyectos se hace uso de estándares y vocabularios clínicos ya existentes, como pueden ser HL7 o SNOMED, adaptándolos a las necesidades particulares de los datos con los que se trabaja en INTEGRATE y EURECA. Los datos clínicos se representan de manera que cada concepto utilizado sea único, evitando ambigüedades y apoyando la idea de plataforma común. El alumno ha formado parte de un equipo de trabajo perteneciente al Grupo de Informática de la UPM, que a su vez trabaja como uno de los socios de los proyectos europeos nombrados anteriormente. La herramienta desarrollada, tiene como objetivo realizar tareas de homogenización de la información almacenada en las bases de datos de los proyectos haciendo uso de los mecanismos de normalización proporcionados por el vocabulario médico SNOMED-CT. Las bases de datos normalizadas serán las utilizadas para llevar a cabo consultas por medio de servicios proporcionados en la capa de interoperabilidad, ya que contendrán información más precisa y completa que las bases de datos sin normalizar. El trabajo ha sido realizado entre el día 12 de Septiembre del año 2014, donde comienza la etapa de formación y recopilación de información, y el día 5 de Enero del año 2015, en el cuál se termina la redacción de la memoria. El ciclo de vida utilizado ha sido el de desarrollo en cascada, en el que las tareas no comienzan hasta que la etapa inmediatamente anterior haya sido finalizada y validada. Sin embargo, no todas las tareas han seguido este modelo, ya que la realización de la memoria del trabajo se ha llevado a cabo de manera paralela con el resto de tareas. El número total de horas dedicadas al Trabajo de Fin de Grado es 324. Las tareas realizadas y el tiempo de dedicación de cada una de ellas se detallan a continuación:  Formación. Etapa de recopilación de información necesaria para implementar la herramienta y estudio de la misma [30 horas.  Especificación de requisitos. Se documentan los diferentes requisitos que ha de cumplir la herramienta [20 horas].  Diseño. En esta etapa se toman las decisiones de diseño de la herramienta [35 horas].  Implementación. Desarrollo del código de la herramienta [80 horas].  Pruebas. Etapa de validación de la herramienta, tanto de manera independiente como integrada en los proyectos INTEGRATE y EURECA [70 horas].  Depuración. Corrección de errores e introducción de mejoras de la herramienta [45 horas].  Realización de la memoria. Redacción de la memoria final del trabajo [44 horas].---ABSTRACT---This project belongs to the semantic interoperability layer developed in the European projects INTEGRATE and EURECA, which aims to provide a platform to promote interchange of medical information from clinical trials to clinical institutions. Thus, research institutions may cooperate to enhance clinical practice. Different health standards and clinical terminologies has been used in both INTEGRATE and EURECA projects, e.g. HL7 or SNOMED-CT. These tools have been adapted to the projects data requirements. Clinical data are represented by unique concepts, avoiding ambiguity problems. The student has been working in the Biomedical Informatics Group from UPM, partner of the INTEGRATE and EURECA projects. The tool developed aims to perform homogenization tasks over information stored in databases of the project, through normalized representation provided by the SNOMED-CT terminology. The data query is executed against the normalized version of the databases, since the information retrieved will be more informative than non-normalized databases. The project has been performed from September 12th of 2014, when initiation stage began, to January 5th of 2015, when the final report was finished. The waterfall model for software development was followed during the working process. Therefore, a phase may not start before the previous one finishes and has been validated, except from the final report redaction, which has been carried out in parallel with the others phases. The tasks that have been developed and time for each one are detailed as follows:  Training. Gathering the necessary information to develop the tool [30 hours].  Software requirement specification. Requirements the tool must accomplish [20 hours].  Design. Decisions on the design of the tool [35 hours].  Implementation. Tool development [80 hours].  Testing. Tool evaluation within the framework of the INTEGRATE and EURECA projects [70 hours].  Debugging. Improve efficiency and correct errors [45 hours].  Documenting. Final report elaboration [44 hours].

A software process improvement solution for small and medium-size enterprises

The focus of this paper is to outline the main structure of an alternative software process improvement method for small- and medium-size enterprises. This method is based on the action package concept, which helps to institutionalize the effective practices with affordable implementation costs. This paper also presents the results and lessons learned when this method was applied to three enterprises in the requirements engineering domain.

Conceptualización de requerimientos: Propuesta de proceso y técnicas asociadas

El proceso de captura de requisitos constituye un proceso con connotaciones sociales relacionadas con diferentes personas (stakeholders), una circunstancia que hace que ciertos problemas se presenten cuando se lleva adelante el proceso de conceptualización de requisitos. Se propone un proceso de conceptualización de requisitos que se estructura en dos fases: (a) Análisis Orientado a al Problema: cuyo objetivo es comprender el problema dado por el usuario en el dominio en el que este se lleva a cabo, y (b) Análisis de Orientado al Producto: cuyo objetivo es obtener las funcionalidades que el usuario espera del producto de software a desarrollar, teniendo en cuenta la relación de estas con la realidad expresada por el usuario en su discurso. Se proponen seis técnicas que articulan cada una de las tareas que componen las fases de proceso propuesto.

Ontology Requirements Specification

The goal of the ontology requirements specification activity is to state why the ontology is being built, what its intended uses are, who the end users are, and which requirements the ontology should fulfill. This chapter presents detailed methodological guidelines for specifying ontology requirements efficiently. These guidelines will help ontology engineers to capture ontology requirements and produce the ontology requirements specification document (ORSD). The ORSD will play a key role during the ontology development process because it facilitates, among other activities, (1) the search and reuse of existing knowledge resources with the aim of reengineering them into ontologies, (2) the search and reuse of ontological resources (ontologies, ontology modules, ontology statements as well as ontology design patterns), and (3) the verification of the ontology along the ontology development.

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).

Application of knowledge engineering acquisition techniques to requirements capture: a case study

In this paper we want to point out, by means of a case study, the importance of incorporating some knowledge engineering techniques to the processes of software engineering. Precisely, we are referring to the knowledge eduction techniques. We know the difficulty of requirements acquisition and its importance to minimise the risks of a software project, both in the development phase and in the maintenance phase. To capture the functional requirements use cases are generally used. However, as we will show in this paper, this technique is insufficient when the problem domain knowledge is only in the "experts? mind". In this situation, the combination of the use case with eduction techniques, in every development phase, will let us to discover the correct requirements.

Rapid prototyping for biomedical engineering: current capabilities and Challenges

A new set of manufacturing technologies has emerged in the past decades to address market requirements in a customized way and to provide support for research tasks that require prototypes. These new techniques and technologies are usually referred to as rapid prototyping and manufacturing technologies, and they allow prototypes to be produced in a wide range of materials with remarkable precision in a couple of hours. Although they have been rapidly incorporated into product development methodologies, they are still under development, and their applications in bioengineering are continuously evolving. Rapid prototyping and manufacturing technologies can be of assistance in every stage of the development process of novel biodevices, to address various problems that can arise in the devices' interactions with biological systems and the fact that the design decisions must be tested carefully. This review focuses on the main fields of application for rapid prototyping in biomedical engineering and health sciences, as well as on the most remarkable challenges and research trends.

Experiences in the assessment of the requirement management process

The focus of this paper is to outline the practical experiences and the lessons learned derived from the assessment of the requirements management process in two industrial case studies. Furthermore this paper explains the main structure of an alternative assessment approach that has been used in the appraisal of the two case studies. The assessment approach helped us to know the current state of the organizational requirement management process. We have to point out that these practical experiences and the lessons learned can be helpful to reduce risks and costs of the on-site assessment process.

Assessment of the requirement management process using a two-stage questionnaire

This research advocates the idea that although requirements management process is not carried out in many organizations there is some people within the organization that perform some requirements management practices. However, these practices are usually not documented and as consequence are not spread across the organization. This paper proposes an assessment methodology based on a two-stage questionnaire to identify which practices of the requirements management process are performed but not documented, which practices require to be prioritized and which are not implemented due to bad management or unawareness. In order to validate the assessment methodology, the questionnaire was applied to an industrial case study.

Determining practices achievement in the requirement management process using a two-stage questionnaire

This paper aims to obtain a baseline snapshot of the requirement management process using a two-stage questionnaire to identify both performed and non-performed CMMI practices. The questionnaire proposed in this paper may help with the assessment of the requirement management process, provide useful information related to the current state of the process, and indicate those practices that require immediate attention with the aim of begin a Software Process Improvement program.

Verifying ontology requirements with SWIP

Verifying whether an ontology meets the set of established requirements is a crucial activity in ontology engineering. In this sense, methods and tools are needed (a) to transform (semi-)automatically functional ontology requirements into SPARQL queries, which can serve as unit tests to verify the ontology, and (b) to check whether the ontology fulfils the requirements. Thus, our purpose in this poster paper is to apply the SWIP approach to verify whether an ontology satisfies the set of established requirements.