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).

Using Provenance for Quality Assessment and Repair in Linked Open Data

As the number of data sources publishing their data on the Web of Data is growing, we are experiencing an immense growth of the Linked Open Data cloud. The lack of control on the published sources, which could be untrustworthy or unreliable, along with their dynamic nature that often invalidates links and causes conflicts or other discrepancies, could lead to poor quality data. In order to judge data quality, a number of quality indicators have been proposed, coupled with quality metrics that quantify the “quality level” of a dataset. In addition to the above, some approaches address how to improve the quality of the datasets through a repair process that focuses on how to correct invalidities caused by constraint violations by either removing or adding triples. In this paper we argue that provenance is a critical factor that should be taken into account during repairs to ensure that the most reliable data is kept. Based on this idea, we propose quality metrics that take into account provenance and evaluate their applicability as repair guidelines in a particular data fusion setting.

Translational research combining orthologous genes and human diseases with the OGOLOD dataset

OGOLOD is a Linked Open Data dataset derived from different biomedical resources by an automated pipeline, using a tailored ontology as a scaffold. The key contribution of OGOLOD is that it links, in new RDF triples, genetic human diseases and orthologous genes, paving the way for a more efficient translational biomedical research exploiting the Linked Open Data cloud.

Quantity and degree assessment in an RDF.based semantic language

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

HDTourist: exploring urban data on Android

The Web of Data currently comprises ? 62 billion triples from more than 2,000 different datasets covering many fields of knowledge3. This volume of structured Linked Data can be seen as a particular case of Big Data, referred to as Big Semantic Data [4]. Obviously, powerful computational configurations are tradi- tionally required to deal with the scalability problems arising to Big Semantic Data. It is not surprising that this ?data revolution? has competed in parallel with the growth of mobile computing. Smartphones and tablets are massively used at the expense of traditional computers but, to date, mobile devices have more limited computation resources. Therefore, one question that we may ask ourselves would be: can (potentially large) semantic datasets be consumed natively on mobile devices? Currently, only a few mobile apps (e.g., [1, 9, 2, 8]) make use of semantic data that they store in the mobile devices, while many others access existing SPARQL endpoints or Linked Data directly. Two main reasons can be considered for this fact. On the one hand, in spite of some initial approaches [6, 3], there are no well-established triplestores for mobile devices. This is an important limitation because any po- tential app must assume both RDF storage and SPARQL resolution. On the other hand, the particular features of these devices (little storage space, less computational power or more limited bandwidths) limit the adoption of seman- tic data for different uses and purposes. This paper introduces our HDTourist mobile application prototype. It con- sumes urban data from DBpedia4 to help tourists visiting a foreign city. Although it is a simple app, its functionality allows illustrating how semantic data can be stored and queried with limited resources. Our prototype is implemented for An- droid, but its foundations, explained in Section 2, can be deployed in any other platform. The app is described in Section 3, and Section 4 concludes about our current achievements and devises the future work.

Linked Data Rights 2.0: extension of ODRL for Licensing Linked Data

Linked Data assets (RDF triples, graphs, datasets, mappings...) can be object of protection by the intellectual property law, the database law or its access or publication be restricted by other legal reasons (personal data pro- tection, security reasons, etc.). Publishing a rights expression along with the digital asset, allows the rightsholder waiving some or all of the IP and database rights (leaving the work in the public domain), permitting some operations if certain conditions are satisfied (like giving attribution to the author) or simply reminding the audience that some rights are reserved.

La escalera de caracol en los tratados de cantería españoles de la Edad Moderna y su presencia en el Patrimonio Construido hispánico: estudio geométrico y constructivo

La escalera de caracol es uno de los elementos que mejor define la evolución de la construcción pétrea a lo largo de nuestra historia moderna. El movimiento helicoidal de las piezas de una escalera muestra, con frecuencia, el virtuosismo que alcanzaron los maestros del arte de la cantería y la plasticidad, expresividad y ligereza de sus obras. A pesar de su origen exclusivamente utilitario y de su ubicación secundaria, se convertirán en signo de maestría y en elementos protagonistas del espacio que recorren y de la composición de los edificios, como es el caso de las grande vis de los Châteaux franceses del XVI como Blois, Chateaudun o Chambord o los schlosses alemanes como el de Hartenfels en Torgau. Este protagonismo queda patente en los tratados y manuscritos de cantería, elaborados fundamentalmente en España y Francia, a partir del siglo XVI que recogen un gran número de variantes de escaleras de caracol entre sus folios. Breve historia de la escalera de Caracol Los ejemplos más antiguos conocidos de escaleras de caracol en Occidente provienen de los primeros siglos de nuestra era y están asociados a construcciones de tipo conmemorativo, funerario o civil, romanas. Destaca de entre ellas la columna trajana, construida en el 113 por Apolodoro de Damasco en los Foros de Roma. Esta columna, conservada en la actualidad, fue profusamente representada por los tratados de arquitectura desde el Renacimento como el de Serlio, Caramuel, Piranesi, Rondelet y, más recientemente, Canina. Choisy describe en El arte de construir en Bizancio un grupo de escaleras de caracol cubiertas por bóvedas helicoidales y construidas entre el siglo IV y VIII; a esta misma época pertenecen otras escaleras con bóvedas aparejadas de forma desigual con sillarejos y sillares de pequeño tamaño sin reglas de traba claras, pensadas al igual que las de Choisy para ser revestidas con un mortero. Herederas de estas bóvedas de la antigüedad son las escaleras de caracol de la Edad Media. Así las describe Viollet le Duc: “compuestas por un machón construido en cantería, con caja perimetral circular, bóveda helicoidal construida en piedra sin aparejar, que se apoya en el machón y sobre el paramento circular interior. Estas bóvedas soportan los peldaños en los que las aristas son trazadas siguiendo los radios del círculo”. En esta misma época, siglos XI y XII, se construyen un grupo de escaleras de caracol abovedadas en piedra de cantería vista: las de la torre oeste de Notre Dame des Doms en Avignon, las de la tour de Roi, de Évêque y Bermonde de los Chateaux de Uzés, las gemelas de las torres de la Catedral Saint Théodorit de Uzés y la conocida escalera del transepto de la Abadía de Saint Gilles. Ésta última dará el nombre a uno de los modelos estereotómicos de mayor complejidad del art du trait o arte de la cantería: la vis Saint Gilles, que aparece en la mayoría de los textos dedicados al corte de piedras en España y Francia. La perfección y dificultad de su trazado hizo que, durante siglos, esta escalera de caracol fuera lugar de peregrinación de canteros y se convirtiera en el arquetipo de un modelo representado con profusión en los tratados hasta el siglo XIX. A partir del siglo XIII, será el husillo el tipo de escalera curva que dará respuesta a las intenciones de la arquitectura a la “moderna” o gótica. Estas escaleras con machón central se generalizarán, insertándose en un complejo sistema de circulaciones de servicio, que conectaban por completo, en horizontal y vertical, los edificios. Estos pasadizos horizontales y estas conexiones verticales, hábilmente incorporadas en el espesor de contrafuertes, machones, esquinas, etc, serán una innovación específicamente gótica, como señala Fitchen. La pieza de peldaño, que se fabrica casi “en serie” reflejará fielmente el espíritu racional y funcionalista de la arquitectura gótica. Inicialmente los peldaños serán prismáticos, sin labrar por su cara interior; después, éstos darán paso a escaleras más amables con los helicoides reglados formando su intradós. Insertos en construcciones góticas y en convivencia con husillos, encontramos algunos ejemplos de escaleras abovedadas en el siglo XIII y XIV. Estamos hablando de la escalera de la torre este del Castillo de Maniace en Siracusa, Sicilia y la escalera de la torre norte del transepto de la Catedral de Barcelona. En ambos casos, los caracoles se pueden relacionar con el tipo vis de Saint Gilles, pero incorporan invariantes de la construcción gótica que les hace mantener una relación tipológica y constructiva con los husillos elaborados en la misma época. En la segunda mitad del siglo XV aparecen, vinculadas al ámbito mediterráneo, un conjunto de escaleras en las que el machón central se desplaza transformándose en una moldura perimetral y dejando su lugar a un espacio hueco que permite el paso de la luz. Los tratados manuscritos de cantería que circulan en el XVI y XVII por España recogen el modelo con su denominación: caracol de Mallorca. Varios autores han mantenido la tesis de que el nombre proviene de la escalera situada en la torre noroeste de la Lonja de Palma de Mallorca. Los Manuscritos y tratados de Cantería y las escaleras de caracol Coincidiendo con la apertura intelectual que propicia el Renacimiento se publican algunos tratados de arquitectura que contienen capítulos dedicados al corte de las piedras. El primero de ellos es Le premier tome de l’Architecture de Philibert de L’Orme, publicado en 1567 en Francia. En España tenemos constancia de la existencia de numerosos cuadernos profesionales que circulaban entre los canteros. Varias copias de estos manuscritos han llegado hasta nuestros días. Los más completos son sin duda, las dos copias que se conservan del tratado de arquitectura de Alonso de Vandelvira, una en la Biblioteca Nacional y otra en la Biblioteca de la Escuela de Arquitectura de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid y el manuscrito titulado Cerramientos y trazas de Montea de Ginés Martínez de Aranda. Todas estas colecciones de aparejos, con excepción de la atribuida a Pedro de Albiz, presentan trazas de escaleras de caracol. En los siglos XVII y XVIII los textos en España más interesantes para nuestras investigaciones son, como en el XVI, manuscritos que no llegaron a ver la imprenta. Entre ellos destacan De l’art del picapedrer de Joseph Gelabert y el Cuaderno de Arquitectura de Juan de Portor y Castro. Estos dos textos, que contienen varios aparejos de caracoles, están claramente vinculados con la práctica constructiva a diferencia de los textos impresos del XVIII, como los del Padre Tosca o el de Juan García Berruguilla, que dedican algunos capítulos a cortes de Cantería entre los que incluyen trazas de escaleras, pero desde un punto de vista más teórico. Podemos agrupar las trazas recogidas en los manuscritos y tratados en cinco grandes grupos: el caracol de husillo, el caracol de Mallorca, los caracoles abovedados, los caracoles exentos y los caracoles dobles. El husillo, de procedencia gótica, permanece en la mayoría de nuestros textos con diferentes denominaciones: caracol de husillo, caracol de nabo redondo o caracol macho. Se seguirá construyendo con frecuencia durante todo el periodo de la Edad Moderna. Los ejemplares más bellos presentan el intradós labrado formando un helicoide cilíndrico recto como es el caso del husillo del Monasterio de la Vid o el de la Catedral de Salamanca o un helicoide axial recto como en el de la Capilla de la Comunión en la Catedral de Santiago de Compostela. La diferencia estriba en la unión del intradós y el machón central: una amable tangencia en el primer caso o un encuentro marcado por una hélice en el segundo. El segundo tipo de caracol presente en casi todos los autores es el caracol de Mallorca. Vandelvira, Martínez de Aranda, y posteriormente Portor y Castro lo estudian con detenimiento. Gelabert, a mediados del siglo XVII, nos recordará su origen mediterráneo al presentar el que denomina Caracol de ojo abierto. El Caracol de Mallorca también estará presente en colecciones de aparejos como las atribuidas a Alonso de Guardia y Juan de Aguirre, ambas depositadas en la Biblioteca Nacional y en las compilaciones técnicas del siglo XVIII, de fuerte influencia francesa, aunque en este caso ya sin conservar su apelación original. El Caracol que dicen de Mallorca se extiende por todo el territorio peninsular de la mano de los principales maestros de la cantería. Los helicoides labrados con exquisita exactitud, acompañados de armoniosas molduras, servirán de acceso a espacios más representativos como bibliotecas, archivos, salas, etc. Es la escalera de la luz, como nos recuerda su apelación francesa, vis a jour. Precisamente en Francia, coincidiendo con el renacimiento de la arquitectura clásica se realizan una serie de escaleras de caracol abovedadas, en vis de Saint Gilles. Los tratados franceses, comenzando por De L’Orme, y siguiendo por, Jousse, Derand, Milliet Dechales, De la Hire, De la Rue, Frezier, Rondelet, Adhémar o Leroy, entre otros, recogen en sus escritos el modelo y coinciden en reconocer la dificultad de su trazado y el prestigio que adquirían los canteros al elaborar este tipo de escaleras. El modelo llega nuestras tierras en un momento histórico de productivo intercambio cultural y profesional entre Francia y España. Vandelvira, Martínez de Aranda y Portor y Castro analizan en sus tratados la “vía de San Gil”. En la provincia de Cádiz, en la Iglesia Mayor de Medina Sidonia, se construirá el más perfecto de los caracoles abovedados de la España renacentista. También en la provincia de Cádiz y vinculadas, posiblemente, a los mismos maestros encontramos un curioso grupo de escaleras abovedadas con generatriz circular horizontal. A pesar del extenso catálogo de escaleras presentes en la tratadística española, no aparece ninguna que muestre una mínima relación con ellas. Desde el punto de vista de la geometría, estamos ante uno de los tipos de escaleras que describe Choisy en El arte de construir en Bizancio. Se trata de escaleras abovedadas construidas por hojas y lechos horizontales. Los caracoles abovedados tendrán también su versión poligonal: la vis Saint Gilles quarré o el caracol de emperadores cuadrado en su versión vandelviresca. Las soluciones que dibujan los tratados son de planta cuadrada, pero la ejecución será poligonal en los raros ejemplos construidos, que se encuentran exclusivamente en Francia. Su geometría es compleja: el intradós es una superficie reglada alabeada denominada cilindroide; su trazado requiere una habilidad extrema y al ser un tanto innecesaria desde el punto de vista funcional, fue muy poco construida. Otro tipo de escalera habitual es la que Vandelvira y Martínez de Aranda denominan en sus tratados “caracol exento”. Se trata de una escalera volada alrededor de un pilar, sin apoyo en una caja perimetral y que, por lo tanto, debe trabajar en ménsula. Su función fue servir de acceso a espacios de reducidas dimensiones como púlpitos, órganos o coros. Encontramos ejemplos de estos caracoles exentos en el púlpito de la catedral de Viena y en España, en la subida al coro de la Iglesia arciprestal de Morella en Valencia. El largo repertorio de escaleras de caracol prosigue en los tratados y en las múltiples soluciones que encontramos en arquitecturas civiles y religiosas en toda Europa. Hasta varios caracoles en una sola caja: dobles e incluso triples. Dobles como el conocido de Chambord, o el doble husillo del Convento de Santo Domingo en Valencia, rematado por un caracol de Mallorca; triples como la triple escalera del Convento de Santo Domingo de Bonaval en Santiago de Compostela. La tratadística española recogerá dos tipos de caracoles dobles, el ya comentado en una sola caja, en versiones con y sin machón central, definidos por Martínez de Aranda, Juan de Aguirre, Alonso de Guardia y Joseph Gelabert y el caracol doble formado por dos cajas diferentes y coaxiales. Vandelvira lo define como Caracol de Emperadores. Será el único tipo de caracol que recoja Cristobal de Rojas en su Teoría y Práctica de Fortificación. No hay duda que las escaleras de caracol han formado parte de un privilegiado grupo de elementos constructivos en constante evolución e investigación a lo largo de la historia de la arquitectura en piedra. Desde el cantero más humilde hasta los grandes maestros catedralicios las construyeron y, en muchos casos, crearon modelos nuevos en los pergaminos de sus propias colecciones o directamente sobre la piedra. Estos modelos casi experimentales sirvieron para encontrar trabajo o demostrar un grado de profesionalidad a sus autores, que les hiciera, al mismo tiempo, ganarse el respeto de sus compañeros. Gracias a esto, se inició un proceso ese proceso de investigación y evolución que produjo una diversidad en los tipos, sin precedentes en otros elementos similares, y la transferencia de procedimientos dentro del arte de la cantería. Los grandes autores del mundo de la piedra propusieron multitud de tipos y variantes, sin embargo, el modelo de estereotomía tradicionalmente considerado más complejo y más admirado es un caracol de reducidas dimensiones construido en el siglo XII: la Vis de Saint Gilles. Posiblemente ahí es donde reside la grandeza de este arte.

Ampliación de matemáticas

En este manual se recogen diferentes materias, como la integral de Riemann-Stieltjes, las integrales dependientes de un parámetro, las funciones definidas por medio de integrales, las integrales curvilíneas, las integrales dobles y triples, las ecuaciones diferenciales ordinarias o la teoría de los campos escalares y vectoriales, entre otros temas.