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 technologies in idea management systems: a model for interoperability, linking and filtering

Abstract Idea Management Systems are web applications that implement the notion of open innovation though crowdsourcing. Typically, organizations use those kind of systems to connect to large communities in order to gather ideas for improvement of products or services. Originating from simple suggestion boxes, Idea Management Systems advanced beyond collecting ideas and aspire to be a knowledge management solution capable to select best ideas via collaborative as well as expert assessment methods. In practice, however, the contemporary systems still face a number of problems usually related to information overflow and recognizing questionable quality of submissions with reasonable time and effort allocation. This thesis focuses on idea assessment problem area and contributes a number of solutions that allow to filter, compare and evaluate ideas submitted into an Idea Management System. With respect to Idea Management System interoperability the thesis proposes theoretical model of Idea Life Cycle and formalizes it as the Gi2MO ontology which enables to go beyond the boundaries of a single system to compare and assess innovation in an organization wide or market wide context. Furthermore, based on the ontology, the thesis builds a number of solutions for improving idea assessment via: community opinion analysis (MARL), annotation of idea characteristics (Gi2MO Types) and study of idea relationships (Gi2MO Links). The main achievements of the thesis are: application of theoretical innovation models for practice of Idea Management to successfully recognize the differentiation between communities, opinion metrics and their recognition as a new tool for idea assessment, discovery of new relationship types between ideas and their impact on idea clustering. Finally, the thesis outcome is establishment of Gi2MO Project that serves as an incubator for Idea Management solutions and mature open-source software alternatives for the widely available commercial suites. From the academic point of view the project delivers resources to undertake experiments in the Idea Management Systems area and managed to become a forum that gathered a number of academic and industrial partners. Resumen Los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas son aplicaciones Web que implementan el concepto de innovación abierta con técnicas de crowdsourcing. Típicamente, las organizaciones utilizan ese tipo de sistemas para conectar con comunidades grandes y así recoger ideas sobre cómo mejorar productos o servicios. Los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas lian avanzado más allá de recoger simplemente ideas de buzones de sugerencias y ahora aspiran ser una solución de gestión de conocimiento capaz de seleccionar las mejores ideas por medio de técnicas colaborativas, así como métodos de evaluación llevados a cabo por expertos. Sin embargo, en la práctica, los sistemas contemporáneos todavía se enfrentan a una serie de problemas, que, por lo general, están relacionados con la sobrecarga de información y el reconocimiento de las ideas de dudosa calidad con la asignación de un tiempo y un esfuerzo razonables. Esta tesis se centra en el área de la evaluación de ideas y aporta una serie de soluciones que permiten filtrar, comparar y evaluar las ideas publicadas en un Sistema de Gestión de Ideas. Con respecto a la interoperabilidad de los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas, la tesis propone un modelo teórico del Ciclo de Vida de la Idea y lo formaliza como la ontología Gi2MO que permite ir más allá de los límites de un sistema único para comparar y evaluar la innovación en un contexto amplio dentro de cualquier organización o mercado. Por otra parte, basado en la ontología, la tesis desarrolla una serie de soluciones para mejorar la evaluación de las ideas a través de: análisis de las opiniones de la comunidad (MARL), la anotación de las características de las ideas (Gi2MO Types) y el estudio de las relaciones de las ideas (Gi2MO Links). Los logros principales de la tesis son: la aplicación de los modelos teóricos de innovación para la práctica de Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas para reconocer las diferenciasentre comu¬nidades, métricas de opiniones de comunidad y su reconocimiento como una nueva herramienta para la evaluación de ideas, el descubrimiento de nuevos tipos de relaciones entre ideas y su impacto en la agrupación de estas. Por último, el resultado de tesis es el establecimiento de proyecto Gi2MO que sirve como incubadora de soluciones para Gestión de Ideas y herramientas de código abierto ya maduras como alternativas a otros sistemas comerciales. Desde el punto de vista académico, el proyecto ha provisto de recursos a ciertos experimentos en el área de Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas y logró convertirse en un foro que reunión para un número de socios tanto académicos como industriales.

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

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

Exploiting Structured Linked Data in Enterprise Knowledge Management Systems: An Idea Management Case Study

In parallel to the effort of creating Open Linked Data for the World Wide Web there is a number of projects aimed for developing the same technologies but in the context of their usage in closed environments such as private enterprises. In the paper, we present results of research on interlinking structured data for use in Idea Management Systems - a still rare breed of knowledge management systems dedicated to innovation management. In our study, we show the process of extending an ontology that initially covers only the Idea Management System structure towards the concept of linking with distributed enterprise data and public data using Semantic Web technologies. Furthermore we point out how the established links can help to solve the key problems of contemporary Idea Management Systems

Gi2MO: Interoperability, Linking and Filtering in Idea Management Systems

This thesis proposes how to apply the Semantic Web tech- nologies for the Idea Management Systems to deliver a solution to knowl- edge management and information over ow problems. Firstly, the aim is to present a model that introduces rich metadata annotations and their usage in the domain of Idea Management Systems. Furthermore, the the- sis shall investigate how to link innovation data with information from other systems and use it to categorize and lter out the most valuable elements. In addition, the thesis presents a Generic Idea and Innovation Management Ontology (Gi2MO) and aims to back its creation with a set of case studies followed by evaluations that prove how Semantic Web can work as tool to create new opportunities and leverage the contemporary Idea Management legacy systems into the next level.

Combining statistical and semantic approaches to the translation of ontologies and taxonomies

Ontologies and taxonomies are widely used to organize concepts providing the basis for activities such as indexing, and as background knowledge for NLP tasks. As such, translation of these resources would prove useful to adapt these systems to new languages. However, we show that the nature of these resources is significantly different from the "free-text" paradigm used to train most statistical machine translation systems. In particular, we see significant differences in the linguistic nature of these resources and such resources have rich additional semantics. We demonstrate that as a result of these linguistic differences, standard SMT methods, in particular evaluation metrics, can produce poor performance. We then look to the task of leveraging these semantics for translation, which we approach in three ways: by adapting the translation system to the domain of the resource; by examining if semantics can help to predict the syntactic structure used in translation; and by evaluating if we can use existing translated taxonomies to disambiguate translations. We present some early results from these experiments, which shed light on the degree of success we may have with each approach

A generic persistence model for CLP systems (and two useful implementations)

This paper describes a model of persistence in (C)LP languages and two different and practically very useful ways to implement this model in current systems. The fundamental idea is that persistence is a characteristic of certain dynamic predicates (Le., those which encapsulate state). The main effect of declaring a predicate persistent is that the dynamic changes made to such predicates persist from one execution to the next one. After proposing a syntax for declaring persistent predicates, a simple, file-based implementation of the concept is presented and some examples shown. An additional implementation is presented which stores persistent predicates in an external datábase. The abstraction of the concept of persistence from its implementation allows developing applications which can store their persistent predicates alternatively in files or databases with only a few simple changes to a declaration stating the location and modality used for persistent storage. The paper presents the model, the implementation approach in both the cases of using files and relational databases, a number of optimizations of the process (using information obtained from static global analysis and goal clustering), and performance results from an implementation of these ideas.

A generic persistence model for CLP systems

This paper describes a model of persistence in (C)LP languages and two different and practically very useful ways to implement this model in current systems. The fundamental idea is that persistence is a characteristic of certain dynamic predicates (i.e., those which encapsulate state). The main effect of declaring a predicate persistent is that the dynamic changes made to such predicates persist from one execution to the next one. After proposing a syntax for declaring persistent predicates, a simple, file-based implementation of the concept is presented and some examples shown. An additional implementation is presented which stores persistent predicates in an external database. The abstraction of the concept of persistence from its implementation allows developing applications which can store their persistent predicates alternatively in files or databases with only a few simple changes to a declaration stating the location and modality used for persistent storage. The paper presents the model, the implementation approach in both the cases of using files and relational databases, a number of optimizations of the process (using information obtained from static global analysis and goal clustering), and performance results from an implementation of these ideas.

Contributions to the contextualization of human-machine spoken interaction systems

The design and development of spoken interaction systems has been a thoroughly studied research scope for the last decades. The aim is to obtain systems with the ability to interact with human agents with a high degree of naturalness and efficiency, allowing them to carry out the actions they desire using speech, as it is the most natural means of communication between humans. To achieve that degree of naturalness, it is not enough to endow systems with the ability to accurately understand the user’s utterances and to properly react to them, even considering the information provided by the user in his or her previous interactions. The system has also to be aware of the evolution of the conditions under which the interaction takes place, in order to act the most coherent way as possible at each moment. Consequently, one of the most important features of the system is that it has to be context-aware. This context awareness of the system can be reflected in the modification of the behaviour of the system taking into account the current situation of the interaction. For instance, the system should decide which action it has to carry out, or the way to perform it, depending on the user that requests it, on the way that the user addresses the system, on the characteristics of the environment in which the interaction takes place, and so on. In other words, the system has to adapt its behaviour to these evolving elements of the interaction. Moreover that adaptation has to be carried out, if possible, in such a way that the user: i) does not perceive that the system has to make any additional effort, or to devote interaction time to perform tasks other than carrying out the requested actions, and ii) does not have to provide the system with any additional information to carry out the adaptation, which could imply a lesser efficiency of the interaction, since users should devote several interactions only to allow the system to become adapted. In the state-of-the-art spoken dialogue systems, researchers have proposed several disparate strategies to adapt the elements of the system to different conditions of the interaction (such as the acoustic characteristics of a specific user’s speech, the actions previously requested, and so on). Nevertheless, to our knowledge there is not any consensus on the procedures to carry out these adaptation. The approaches are to an extent unrelated from one another, in the sense that each one considers different pieces of information, and the treatment of that information is different taking into account the adaptation carried out. In this regard, the main contributions of this Thesis are the following ones: Definition of a contextualization framework. We propose a unified approach that can cover any strategy to adapt the behaviour of a dialogue system to the conditions of the interaction (i.e. the context). In our theoretical definition of the contextualization framework we consider the system’s context as all the sources of variability present at any time of the interaction, either those ones related to the environment in which the interaction takes place, or to the human agent that addresses the system at each moment. Our proposal relies on three aspects that any contextualization approach should fulfill: plasticity (i.e. the system has to be able to modify its behaviour in the most proactive way taking into account the conditions under which the interaction takes place), adaptivity (i.e. the system has also to be able to consider the most appropriate sources of information at each moment, both environmental and user- and dialogue-dependent, to effectively adapt to the conditions aforementioned), and transparency (i.e. the system has to carry out the contextualizaton-related tasks in such a way that the user neither perceives them nor has to do any effort in providing the system with any information that it needs to perform that contextualization). Additionally, we could include a generality aspect to our proposed framework: the main features of the framework should be easy to adopt in any dialogue system, regardless of the solution proposed to manage the dialogue. Once we define the theoretical basis of our contextualization framework, we propose two cases of study on its application in a spoken dialogue system. We focus on two aspects of the interaction: the contextualization of the speech recognition models, and the incorporation of user-specific information into the dialogue flow. One of the modules of a dialogue system that is more prone to be contextualized is the speech recognition system. This module makes use of several models to emit a recognition hypothesis from the user’s speech signal. Generally speaking, a recognition system considers two types of models: an acoustic one (that models each of the phonemes that the recognition system has to consider) and a linguistic one (that models the sequences of words that make sense for the system). In this work we contextualize the language model of the recognition system in such a way that it takes into account the information provided by the user in both his or her current utterance and in the previous ones. These utterances convey information useful to help the system in the recognition of the next utterance. The contextualization approach that we propose consists of a dynamic adaptation of the language model that is used by the recognition system. We carry out this adaptation by means of a linear interpolation between several models. Instead of training the best interpolation weights, we make them dependent on the conditions of the dialogue. In our approach, the system itself will obtain these weights as a function of the reliability of the different elements of information available, such as the semantic concepts extracted from the user’s utterance, the actions that he or she wants to carry out, the information provided in the previous interactions, and so on. One of the aspects more frequently addressed in Human-Computer Interaction research is the inclusion of user specific characteristics into the information structures managed by the system. The idea is to take into account the features that make each user different from the others in order to offer to each particular user different services (or the same service, but in a different way). We could consider this approach as a user-dependent contextualization of the system. In our work we propose the definition of a user model that contains all the information of each user that could be potentially useful to the system at a given moment of the interaction. In particular we will analyze the actions that each user carries out throughout his or her interaction. The objective is to determine which of these actions become the preferences of that user. We represent the specific information of each user as a feature vector. Each of the characteristics that the system will take into account has a confidence score associated. With these elements, we propose a probabilistic definition of a user preference, as the action whose likelihood of being addressed by the user is greater than the one for the rest of actions. To include the user dependent information into the dialogue flow, we modify the information structures on which the dialogue manager relies to retrieve information that could be needed to solve the actions addressed by the user. Usage preferences become another source of contextual information that will be considered by the system towards a more efficient interaction (since the new information source will help to decrease the need of the system to ask users for additional information, thus reducing the number of turns needed to carry out a specific action). To test the benefits of the contextualization framework that we propose, we carry out an evaluation of the two strategies aforementioned. We gather several performance metrics, both objective and subjective, that allow us to compare the improvements of a contextualized system against the baseline one. We will also gather the user’s opinions as regards their perceptions on the behaviour of the system, and its degree of adaptation to the specific features of each interaction. Resumen El diseño y el desarrollo de sistemas de interacción hablada ha sido objeto de profundo estudio durante las pasadas décadas. El propósito es la consecución de sistemas con la capacidad de interactuar con agentes humanos con un alto grado de eficiencia y naturalidad. De esta manera, los usuarios pueden desempeñar las tareas que deseen empleando la voz, que es el medio de comunicación más natural para los humanos. A fin de alcanzar el grado de naturalidad deseado, no basta con dotar a los sistemas de la abilidad de comprender las intervenciones de los usuarios y reaccionar a ellas de manera apropiada (teniendo en consideración, incluso, la información proporcionada en previas interacciones). Adicionalmente, el sistema ha de ser consciente de las condiciones bajo las cuales transcurre la interacción, así como de la evolución de las mismas, de tal manera que pueda actuar de la manera más coherente en cada instante de la interacción. En consecuencia, una de las características primordiales del sistema es que debe ser sensible al contexto. Esta capacidad del sistema de conocer y emplear el contexto de la interacción puede verse reflejada en la modificación de su comportamiento debida a las características actuales de la interacción. Por ejemplo, el sistema debería decidir cuál es la acción más apropiada, o la mejor manera de llevarla a término, dependiendo del usuario que la solicita, del modo en el que lo hace, etcétera. En otras palabras, el sistema ha de adaptar su comportamiento a tales elementos mutables (o dinámicos) de la interacción. Dos características adicionales son requeridas a dicha adaptación: i) el usuario no ha de percibir que el sistema dedica recursos (temporales o computacionales) a realizar tareas distintas a las que aquél le solicita, y ii) el usuario no ha de dedicar esfuerzo alguno a proporcionar al sistema información adicional para llevar a cabo la interacción. Esto último implicaría una menor eficiencia de la interacción, puesto que los usuarios deberían dedicar parte de la misma a proporcionar información al sistema para su adaptación, sin ningún beneficio inmediato. En los sistemas de diálogo hablado propuestos en la literatura, se han propuesto diferentes estrategias para llevar a cabo la adaptación de los elementos del sistema a las diferentes condiciones de la interacción (tales como las características acústicas del habla de un usuario particular, o a las acciones a las que se ha referido con anterioridad). Sin embargo, no existe una estrategia fija para proceder a dicha adaptación, sino que las mismas no suelen guardar una relación entre sí. En este sentido, cada una de ellas tiene en cuenta distintas fuentes de información, la cual es tratada de manera diferente en función de las características de la adaptación buscada. Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, las contribuciones principales de esta Tesis son las siguientes: Definición de un marco de contextualización. Proponemos un criterio unificador que pueda cubrir cualquier estrategia de adaptación del comportamiento de un sistema de diálogo a las condiciones de la interacción (esto es, el contexto de la misma). En nuestra definición teórica del marco de contextualización consideramos el contexto del sistema como todas aquellas fuentes de variabilidad presentes en cualquier instante de la interacción, ya estén relacionadas con el entorno en el que tiene lugar la interacción, ya dependan del agente humano que se dirige al sistema en cada momento. Nuestra propuesta se basa en tres aspectos que cualquier estrategia de contextualización debería cumplir: plasticidad (es decir, el sistema ha de ser capaz de modificar su comportamiento de la manera más proactiva posible, teniendo en cuenta las condiciones en las que tiene lugar la interacción), adaptabilidad (esto es, el sistema ha de ser capaz de considerar la información oportuna en cada instante, ya dependa del entorno o del usuario, de tal manera que adecúe su comportamiento de manera eficaz a las condiciones mencionadas), y transparencia (que implica que el sistema ha de desarrollar las tareas relacionadas con la contextualización de tal manera que el usuario no perciba la manera en que dichas tareas se llevan a cabo, ni tampoco deba proporcionar al sistema con información adicional alguna). De manera adicional, incluiremos en el marco propuesto el aspecto de la generalidad: las características del marco de contextualización han de ser portables a cualquier sistema de diálogo, con independencia de la solución propuesta en los mismos para gestionar el diálogo. Una vez hemos definido las características de alto nivel de nuestro marco de contextualización, proponemos dos estrategias de aplicación del mismo a un sistema de diálogo hablado. Nos centraremos en dos aspectos de la interacción a adaptar: los modelos empleados en el reconocimiento de habla, y la incorporación de información específica de cada usuario en el flujo de diálogo. Uno de los módulos de un sistema de diálogo más susceptible de ser contextualizado es el sistema de reconocimiento de habla. Este módulo hace uso de varios modelos para generar una hipótesis de reconocimiento a partir de la señal de habla. En general, un sistema de reconocimiento emplea dos tipos de modelos: uno acústico (que modela cada uno de los fonemas considerados por el reconocedor) y uno lingüístico (que modela las secuencias de palabras que tienen sentido desde el punto de vista de la interacción). En este trabajo contextualizamos el modelo lingüístico del reconocedor de habla, de tal manera que tenga en cuenta la información proporcionada por el usuario, tanto en su intervención actual como en las previas. Estas intervenciones contienen información (semántica y/o discursiva) que puede contribuir a un mejor reconocimiento de las subsiguientes intervenciones del usuario. La estrategia de contextualización propuesta consiste en una adaptación dinámica del modelo de lenguaje empleado en el reconocedor de habla. Dicha adaptación se lleva a cabo mediante una interpolación lineal entre diferentes modelos. En lugar de entrenar los mejores pesos de interpolación, proponemos hacer los mismos dependientes de las condiciones actuales de cada diálogo. El propio sistema obtendrá estos pesos como función de la disponibilidad y relevancia de las diferentes fuentes de información disponibles, tales como los conceptos semánticos extraídos a partir de la intervención del usuario, o las acciones que el mismo desea ejecutar. Uno de los aspectos más comúnmente analizados en la investigación de la Interacción Persona-Máquina es la inclusión de las características específicas de cada usuario en las estructuras de información empleadas por el sistema. El objetivo es tener en cuenta los aspectos que diferencian a cada usuario, de tal manera que el sistema pueda ofrecer a cada uno de ellos el servicio más apropiado (o un mismo servicio, pero de la manera más adecuada a cada usuario). Podemos considerar esta estrategia como una contextualización dependiente del usuario. En este trabajo proponemos la definición de un modelo de usuario que contenga toda la información relativa a cada usuario, que pueda ser potencialmente utilizada por el sistema en un momento determinado de la interacción. En particular, analizaremos aquellas acciones que cada usuario decide ejecutar a lo largo de sus diálogos con el sistema. Nuestro objetivo es determinar cuáles de dichas acciones se convierten en las preferencias de cada usuario. La información de cada usuario quedará representada mediante un vector de características, cada una de las cuales tendrá asociado un valor de confianza. Con ambos elementos proponemos una definición probabilística de una preferencia de uso, como aquella acción cuya verosimilitud es mayor que la del resto de acciones solicitadas por el usuario. A fin de incluir la información dependiente de usuario en el flujo de diálogo, llevamos a cabo una modificación de las estructuras de información en las que se apoya el gestor de diálogo para recuperar información necesaria para resolver ciertos diálogos. En dicha modificación las preferencias de cada usuario pasarán a ser una fuente adicional de información contextual, que será tenida en cuenta por el sistema en aras de una interacción más eficiente (puesto que la nueva fuente de información contribuirá a reducir la necesidad del sistema de solicitar al usuario información adicional, dando lugar en consecuencia a una reducción del número de intervenciones necesarias para llevar a cabo una acción determinada). Para determinar los beneficios de las aplicaciones del marco de contextualización propuesto, llevamos a cabo una evaluación de un sistema de diálogo que incluye las estrategias mencionadas. Hemos recogido diversas métricas, tanto objetivas como subjetivas, que nos permiten determinar las mejoras aportadas por un sistema contextualizado en comparación con el sistema sin contextualizar. De igual manera, hemos recogido las opiniones de los participantes en la evaluación acerca de su percepción del comportamiento del sistema, y de su capacidad de adaptación a las condiciones concretas de cada interacción.

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.

A core ontological model for semantic sensor web infrastructures

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

Enabling query technologies for the semantic sensor web

Sensor networks are increasingly being deployed in the environment for many different purposes. The observations that they produce are made available with heterogeneous schemas, vocabularies and data formats, making it difficult to share and reuse this data, for other purposes than those for which they were originally set up. The authors propose an ontology-based approach for providing data access and query capabilities to streaming data sources, allowing users to express their needs at a conceptual level, independent of implementation and language-specific details. In this article, the authors describe the theoretical foundations and technologies that enable exposing semantically enriched sensor metadata, and querying sensor observations through SPARQL extensions, using query rewriting and data translation techniques according to mapping languages, and managing both pull and push delivery modes.

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.

A novel context ontology to facilitate interoperation of semantic services in environments with wearable devices

The LifeWear-Mobilized Lifestyle with Wearables (Lifewear) project attempts to create Ambient Intelligence (AmI) ecosystems by composing personalized services based on the user information, environmental conditions and reasoning outputs. Two of the most important benefits over traditional environments are 1) take advantage of wearable devices to get user information in a nonintrusive way and 2) integrate this information with other intelligent services and environmental sensors. This paper proposes a new ontology composed by the integration of users and services information, for semantically representing this information. Using an Enterprise Service Bus, this ontology is integrated in a semantic middleware to provide context-aware personalized and semantically annotated services, with discovery, composition and orchestration tasks. We show how these services support a real scenario proposed in the Lifewear project.

Scalable Raid Storage Based on the Structure of Multimedia File.

In professional video production, users have to access to huge multimedia files simultaneously in an error-free environment, this restriction force the use of expensive disk architectures for video servers. Previous researches proposed different RAID systems for each specific task (ingest, editing, file, play-out, etc.). Video production companies have to acquire different servers with different RAIDs systems in order to support each task in the production workflow. The solution has multiples disadvantages, duplicated material in several RAIDs, duplicated material for different qualities, transfer and transcoding processes, etc. In this work, an architecture for video servers based on the spreading of JPEG200 data in different RAIDs is presented, each individual part of the data structure goes to a specific RAID type depending on the effect that produces the data on the overall image quality, the method provide a redundancy correlated with the data rank. The global storage can be used in all the different tasks of the production workflow saving disk space, redundant files and transfers procedures.