Task-based telemanipulation for maintenance in large scientific facilities

This thesis presents a task-oriented approach to telemanipulation for maintenance in large scientific facilities, with specific focus on the particle accelerator facilities at European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland and GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany. It examines how telemanipulation can be used in these facilities and reviews how this differs from the representation of telemanipulation tasks within the literature. It provides methods to assess and compare telemanipulation procedures as well a test suite to compare telemanipulators themselves from a dexterity perspective. It presents a formalisation of telemanipulation procedures into a hierarchical model which can be then used as a basis to aid maintenance engineers in assessing tasks for telemanipulation, and as the basis for future research. The model introduces a new concept of Elemental Actions as the building block of telemanipulation movements and incorporates the dependent factors for procedures at a higher level of abstraction. In order to gain insight into realistic tasks performed by telemanipulation systems within both industrial and research environments a survey of teleoperation experts is presented. Analysis of the responses is performed from which it is concluded that there is a need within the robotics community for physical benchmarking tests which are geared towards evaluating the dexterity of telemanipulators for comparison of their dexterous abilities. A three stage test suite is presented which is designed to allow maintenance engineers to assess different telemanipulators for their dexterity. This incorporates general characteristics of the system, a method to compare kinematic reachability of multiple telemanipulators and physical test setups to assess dexterity from a both a qualitative perspective and measurably by using performance metrics. Finally, experimental results are provided for the application of the proposed test suite onto two telemanipulation systems, one from a research setting and the other within CERN. It describes the procedure performed and discusses comparisons between the two systems, as well as providing input from the expert operator of the CERN system.

OSIRIS – The scientific camera system onboard Rosetta

The Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared Remote Imaging System OSIRIS is the scientific camera system onboard the Rosetta spacecraft (Figure 1). The advanced high performance imaging system will be pivotal for the success of the Rosetta mission. OSIRIS will detect 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from a distance of more than 106 km, characterise the comet shape and volume, its rotational state and find a suitable landing spot for Philae, the Rosetta lander. OSIRIS will observe the nucleus, its activity and surroundings down to a scale of ~2 cm px−1. The observations will begin well before the onset of cometary activity and will extend over months until the comet reaches perihelion. During the rendezvous episode of the Rosetta mission, OSIRIS will provide key information about the nature of cometary nuclei and reveal the physics of cometary activity that leads to the gas and dust coma. OSIRIS comprises a high resolution Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) unit and a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) unit accompanied by three electronics boxes. The NAC is designed to obtain high resolution images of the surface of comet 7P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko through 12 discrete filters over the wavelength range 250–1000 nm at an angular resolution of 18.6 μrad px−1. The WAC is optimised to provide images of the near-nucleus environment in 14 discrete filters at an angular resolution of 101 μrad px−1. The two units use identical shutter, filter wheel, front door, and detector systems. They are operated by a common Data Processing Unit. The OSIRIS instrument has a total mass of 35 kg and is provided by institutes from six European countries

Quantitative Determination of the Relationship between Internal Validity and Bias in Software Engineering Experiments: Consequences for Systematic Literature Reviews

Quality assessment is one of the activities performed as part of systematic literature reviews. It is commonly accepted that a good quality experiment is bias free. Bias is considered to be related to internal validity (e.g., how adequately the experiment is planned, executed and analysed). Quality assessment is usually conducted using checklists and quality scales. It has not yet been proven;however, that quality is related to experimental bias. Aim: Identify whether there is a relationship between internal validity and bias in software engineering experiments. Method: We built a quality scale to determine the quality of the studies, which we applied to 28 experiments included in two systematic literature reviews. We proposed an objective indicator of experimental bias, which we applied to the same 28 experiments. Finally, we analysed the correlations between the quality scores and the proposed measure of bias. Results: We failed to find a relationship between the global quality score (resulting from the quality scale) and bias; however, we did identify interesting correlations between bias and some particular aspects of internal validity measured by the instrument. Conclusions: There is an empirically provable relationship between internal validity and bias. It is feasible to apply quality assessment in systematic literature reviews, subject to limits on the internal validity aspects for consideration.

Towards a Transfer Model of Scientific and Technological Knowledge: the Case of Mexico

This paper shows the development of a science-technological knowledge transfer model in Mexico, as a means to boost the limited relations between the scientific and industrial environments. The proposal is based on the analysis of eight organizations (research centers and firms) with varying degrees of skill in the practice of science-technological knowledge transfer, and carried out by the case study approach. The analysis highlights the synergistic use of the organizational and technological capabilities of each organization, as a means to identification of the knowledge transfer mechanisms best suited to enabling the establishment of cooperative processes, and achieve the R&D and innovation activities results.

TechnoFusion: new Spanish singular scientific-technical facility for fusion research

Technofusion is the scientific&technical installation for fusion research in Spain, based on three pillars: • It is an open facility to European users. • It is a facility with instrumentation not accesible to small research groups. • It is designed to be closely coordiated with the European Fusion Program. With a budget of 80-100 M€ over five years, several top laboratories will be constructed

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).

Semantic scheduling of virtualized infrastructures for scientific workflows

Virtualized Infrastructures are a promising way for providing flexible and dynamic computing solutions for resourceconsuming tasks. Scientific Workflows are one of these kind of tasks, as they need a large amount of computational resources during certain periods of time. To provide the best infrastructure configuration for a workflow it is necessary to explore as many providers as possible taking into account different criteria like Quality of Service, pricing, response time, network latency, etc. Moreover, each one of these new resources must be tuned to provide the tools and dependencies required by each of the steps of the workflow. Working with different infrastructure providers, either public or private using their own concepts and terms, and with a set of heterogeneous applications requires a framework for integrating all the information about these elements. This work proposes semantic technologies for describing and integrating all the information about the different components of the overall system and a set of policies created by the user. Based on this information a scheduling process will be performed to generate an infrastructure configuration defining the set of virtual machines that must be run and the tools that must be deployed on them.

Detecting common scientific workflow fragments using templates and execution provenance

Provenance plays a major role when understanding and reusing the methods applied in a scientic experiment, as it provides a record of inputs, the processes carried out and the use and generation of intermediate and nal results. In the specic case of in-silico scientic experiments, a large variety of scientic workflow systems (e.g., Wings, Taverna, Galaxy, Vistrails) have been created to support scientists. All of these systems produce some sort of provenance about the executions of the workflows that encode scientic experiments. However, provenance is normally recorded at a very low level of detail, which complicates the understanding of what happened during execution. In this paper we propose an approach to automatically obtain abstractions from low-level provenance data by finding common workflow fragments on workflow execution provenance and relating them to templates. We have tested our approach with a dataset of workflows published by the Wings workflow system. Our results show that by using these kinds of abstractions we can highlight the most common abstract methods used in the executions of a repository, relating different runs and workflow templates with each other.

Data-Intensive architecture for scientific knowledge discovery

This paper presents a data-intensive architecture that demonstrates the ability to support applications from a wide range of application domains, and support the different types of users involved in defining, designing and executing data-intensive processing tasks. The prototype architecture is introduced, and the pivotal role of DISPEL as a canonical language is explained. The architecture promotes the exploration and exploitation of distributed and heterogeneous data and spans the complete knowledge discovery process, from data preparation, to analysis, to evaluation and reiteration. The architecture evaluation included large-scale applications from astronomy, cosmology, hydrology, functional genetics, imaging processing and seismology.

Augmenting PROV with Plans in P-PLAN: Scientific Processes as Linked Data

Provenance models are crucial for describing experimental results in science. The W3C Provenance Working Group has recently released the PROV family of specifications for provenance on the Web. While provenance focuses on what is executed, it is important in science to publish the general methods that describe scientific processes at a more abstract and general level. In this paper, we propose P-PLAN, an extension of PROV to represent plans that guid-ed the execution and their correspondence to provenance records that describe the execution itself. We motivate and discuss the use of P-PLAN and PROV to publish scientific workflows as Linked Data.

Common motifs in scientific workflows: An empirical analysis

While workflow technology has gained momentum in the last decade as a means for specifying and enacting computational experiments in modern science, reusing and repurposing existing workflows to build new scientific experiments is still a daunting task. This is partly due to the difficulty that scientists experience when attempting to understand existing workflows, which contain several data preparation and adaptation steps in addition to the scientifically significant analysis steps. One way to tackle the understandability problem is through providing abstractions that give a high-level view of activities undertaken within workflows. As a first step towards abstractions, we report in this paper on the results of a manual analysis performed over a set of real-world scientific workflows from Taverna and Wings systems. Our analysis has resulted in a set of scientific workflow motifs that outline i) the kinds of data intensive activities that are observed in workflows (data oriented motifs), and ii) the different manners in which activities are implemented within workflows (workflow oriented motifs). These motifs can be useful to inform workflow designers on the good and bad practices for workflow development, to inform the design of automated tools for the generation of workflow abstractions, etc.

Mesh traversal and sorting for efficient memory usage in scientific codes

Applications that operate on meshes are very popular in High Performance Computing (HPC) environments. In the past, many techniques have been developed in order to optimize the memory accesses for these datasets. Different loop transformations and domain decompositions are com- monly used for structured meshes. However, unstructured grids are more challenging. The memory accesses, based on the mesh connectivity, do not map well to the usual lin- ear memory model. This work presents a method to improve the memory performance which is suitable for HPC codes that operate on meshes. We develop a method to adjust the sequence in which the data are used inside the algorithm, by means of traversing and sorting the mesh. This sorted mesh can be transferred sequentially to the lower memory levels and allows for minimum data transfer requirements. The method also reduces the lower memory requirements dra- matically: up to 63% of the L1 cache misses are removed in a traditional cache system. We have obtained speedups of up to 2.58 on memory operations as measured in a general- purpose CPU. An improvement is also observed with se- quential access memories, where we have observed reduc- tions of up to 99% in the required low-level memory size.

A proposed two-stage two-tether scientific mission at Jupiter

A two-stage mission to place a spacecraft (SC) below the Jovian radiation belts, using a spinning bare tether with plasma contactors at both ends to provide propulsion and power,is proposed. Capture by Lorentz drag on the tether, at the periapsis of a barely hyperbolic equatorial orbit, is followed by a sequence of orbits at near-constant periapsis, drag finally bringing the SC down to a circular orbit below the halo ring. Although increasing both tether heating and bowing, retrograde motion can substantially reduce accumulated dose as compared with prograde motion, at equal tether-to-SC mass ratio. In the second stage,the tether is cut to a segment one order of magnitude smaller, with a single plasma contactor, making the SC to slowly spiral inward over severalmonths while generating large onboard power, which would allow multiple scientific applications, including in situ study of Jovian grains, auroral sounding of upper atmosphere, and space- and time-resolved observations of surface and subsurface.

Common motifs in scientific workflows: An empirical analysis

Workflow technology continues to play an important role as a means for specifying and enacting computational experiments in modern science. Reusing and re-purposing workflows allow scientists to do new experiments faster, since the workflows capture useful expertise from others. As workflow libraries grow, scientists face the challenge of finding workflows appropriate for their task, understanding what each workflow does, and reusing relevant portions of a given workflow.We believe that workflows would be easier to understand and reuse if high-level views (abstractions) of their activities were available in workflow libraries. As a first step towards obtaining these abstractions, we report in this paper on the results of a manual analysis performed over a set of real-world scientific workflows from Taverna, Wings, Galaxy and Vistrails. Our analysis has resulted in a set of scientific workflow motifs that outline (i) the kinds of data-intensive activities that are observed in workflows (Data-Operation motifs), and (ii) the different manners in which activities are implemented within workflows (Workflow-Oriented motifs). These motifs are helpful to identify the functionality of the steps in a given workflow, to develop best practices for workflow design, and to develop approaches for automated generation of workflow abstractions.

Frozen orbits for scientific missions using rotating tethers

We derive a semi-analytic formulation that permits to study the long-term dynamics of fast-rotating inert tethers around planetary satellites. Since space tethers are extensive bodies they generate non-keplerian gravitational forces which depend solely on their mass geometry and attitude, that can be exploited for controlling science orbits. We conclude that rotating tethers modify the geometry of frozen orbits, allowing for lower eccentricity frozen orbits for a wide range of orbital inclination, where the length of the tether becomes a new parameter that the mission analyst may use to shape frozen orbits to tighter operational constraints.