REST service testing based on inferred XML schemas

The concept of service oriented architecture has been extensively explored in software engineering, due to the fact that it produces architectures made up of several interconnected modules, easy to reuse when building new systems. This approach to design would be impossible without interconnection mechanisms such as REST (Representationa State Transfer) services, which allow module communication while minimizing coupling. . However, this low coupling brings disadvantages, such as the lack of transparency, which makes it difficult to sistematically create tests without knowledge of the inner working of a system. In this article, we present an automatic error detection system for REST services, based on a statistical analysis over responses produced at multiple service invocations. Thus, a service can be systematically tested without knowing its full specification. The method can find errors in REST services which could not be identified by means of traditional testing methods, and provides limited testing coverage for services whose response format is unknown. It can be also useful as a complement to other testing mechanisms.

Infrastructure (Resilience-oriented) Modelling Language: I®ML A proposal for modelling infrastructures and their connections

The modelling of critical infrastructures (CIs) is an important issue that needs to be properly addressed, for several reasons. It is a basic support for making decisions about operation and risk reduction. It might help in understanding high-level states at the system-of-systems layer, which are not ready evident to the organisations that manage the lower level technical systems. Moreover, it is also indispensable for setting a common reference between operator and authorities, for agreeing on the incident scenarios that might affect those infrastructures. So far, critical infrastructures have been modelled ad-hoc, on the basis of knowledge and practice derived from less complex systems. As there is no theoretical framework, most of these efforts proceed without clear guides and goals and using informally defined schemas based mostly on boxes and arrows. Different CIs (electricity grid, telecommunications networks, emergency support, etc) have been modelled using particular schemas that were not directly translatable from one CI to another. If there is a desire to build a science of CIs it is because there are some observable commonalities that different CIs share. Up until now, however, those commonalities were not adequately compiled or categorized, so building models of CIs that are rooted on such commonalities was not possible. This report explores the issue of which elements underlie every CI and how those elements can be used to develop a modelling language that will enable CI modelling and, subsequently, analysis of CI interactions, with a special focus on resilience

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).

Arquitectura de información para medicion de rendimiento en entornos e-manufacturing

La implantación de las tecnologías Internet ha permitido la extensión del uso de estrategias e-manufacturing y el desarrollo de herramientas para la recopilación, transformación y sincronización de datos de fabricación vía web. En este ámbito, un área de potencial desarrollo es la extensión del virtual manufacturing a los procesos de Performance Management (PM), área crítica para la toma de decisiones y ejecución de acciones de mejora en fabricación. Este trabajo doctoral propone un Arquitectura de Información para el desarrollo de herramientas virtuales en el ámbito PM. Su aplicación permite asegurar la interoperabilidad necesaria en los procesos de tratamiento de información de toma de decisión. Está formado por tres sub-sistemas: un modelo conceptual, un modelo de objetos y un marco Web compuesto de una plataforma de información y una arquitectura de servicios Web (WS). El modelo conceptual y el modelo de objetos se basa en el desarrollo de toda la información que se necesita para definir y obtener los diferentes indicadores de medida que requieren los procesos PM. La plataforma de información hace uso de las tecnologías XML y B2MML para estructurar un nuevo conjunto de esquemas de mensajes de intercambio de medición de rendimiento (PMXML). Esta plataforma de información se complementa con una arquitectura de servicios web que hace uso de estos esquemas para integrar los procesos de codificación, decodificación, traducción y evaluación de los performance key indicators (KPI). Estos servicios realizan todas las transacciones que permiten transformar los datos origen en información inteligente usable en los procesos de toma de decisión. Un caso práctico de intercambio de datos en procesos de medición del área de mantenimiento de equipos es mostrado para verificar la utilidad de la arquitectura. ABSTRAC The implementation of Internet technologies has led to e-Manufacturing technologies becoming more widely used and to the development of tools for compiling, transforming and synchronizing manufacturing data through the Web. In this context, a potential area for development is the extension of virtual manufacturing to Performance Measurement (PM) processes, a critical area for decision-making and implementing improvement actions in manufacturing. This thesis proposes a Information Architecture to integrate decision support systems in e-manufacturing. Specifically, the proposed architecture offers a homogeneous PM information exchange model that can be applied trough decision support in emanufacturing environment. Its application improves the necessary interoperability in decision-making data processing tasks. It comprises three sub-systems: a data model, a object model and Web Framework which is composed by a PM information platform and PM-Web services architecture. . The data model and the object model are based on developing all the information required to define and acquire the different indicators required by PM processes. The PM information platform uses XML and B2MML technologies to structure a new set of performance measurement exchange message schemas (PM-XML). This PM information platform is complemented by a PM-Web Services architecture that uses these schemas to integrate the coding, decoding, translation and assessment processes of the key performance indicators (KPIs). These services perform all the transactions that enable the source data to be transformed into smart data that can be used in the decision-making processes. A practical example of data exchange for measurement processes in the area of equipment maintenance is shown to demonstrate the utility of the architecture.

Combined static and dynamic assertion-based debugging of constraint logic programs

We propose a general framework for assertion-based debugging of constraint logic programs. Assertions are linguistic constructions for expressing properties of programs. We define several assertion schemas for writing (partial) specifications for constraint logic programs using quite general properties, including user-defined programs. The framework is aimed at detecting deviations of the program behavior (symptoms) with respect to the given assertions, either at compile-time (i.e., statically) or run-time (i.e., dynamically). We provide techniques for using information from global analysis both to detect at compile-time assertions which do not hold in at least one of the possible executions (i.e., static symptoms) and assertions which hold for all possible executions (i.e., statically proved assertions). We also provide program transformations which introduce tests in the program for checking at run-time those assertions whose status cannot be determined at compile-time. Both the static and the dynamic checking are provably safe in the sense that all errors flagged are definite violations of the pecifications. Finally, we report briefly on the currently implemented instances of the generic framework.

A framework for assertion-based debugging in constraint logic programming

We propose a general framework for assertion-based debugging of constraint logic programs. Assertions are linguistic constructions which allow expressing properties of programs. We define assertion schemas which allow writing (partial) specifications for constraint logic programs using quite general properties, including user-defined programs. The framework is aimed at detecting deviations of the program behavior (symptoms) with respect to the given assertions, either at compile-time or run-time. We provide techniques for using information from global analysis both to detect at compile-time assertions which do not hold in at least one of the possible executions (i.e., static symptoms) and assertions which hold for all possible executions (i.e., statically proved assertions). We also provide program transformations which introduce tests in the program for checking at run-time those assertions whose status cannot be determined at compile-time. Both the static and the dynamic checking are provably safe in the sense that all errors flagged are definite violations of the specifications. Finally, we report on an implemented instance of the assertion language and framework.

Ontology-based access to sensor data streams

Sensor networks are increasingly becoming one of the main sources of Big Data on the Web. However, the observations that they produce are made available with heterogeneous schemas, vocabularies and data formats, making it difficult to share and reuse these data for other purposes than those for which they were originally set up. In this thesis we address these challenges, considering how we can transform streaming raw data to rich ontology-based information that is accessible through continuous queries for streaming data. Our main contribution is 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. We introduce novel query rewriting and data translation techniques that rely on mapping definitions relating streaming data models to ontological concepts. Specific contributions include: • The syntax and semantics of the SPARQLStream query language for ontologybased data access, and a query rewriting approach for transforming SPARQLStream queries into streaming algebra expressions. • The design of an ontology-based streaming data access engine that can internally reuse an existing data stream engine, complex event processor or sensor middleware, using R2RML mappings for defining relationships between streaming data models and ontology concepts. Concerning the sensor metadata of such streaming data sources, we have investigated how we can use raw measurements to characterize streaming data, producing enriched data descriptions in terms of ontological models. Our specific contributions are: • A representation of sensor data time series that captures gradient information that is useful to characterize types of sensor data. • A method for classifying sensor data time series and determining the type of data, using data mining techniques, and a method for extracting semantic sensor metadata features from the time series.

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.

Caracterización de Sistemas intensivos en Software desde un punto de vista de innovación=Characterizing Software-intensive Systems from the innovation point of view

La innovación en Sistemas Intesivos en Software está alcanzando relevancia por múltiples razones: el software está presente en sectores como automóvil, teléfonos móviles o salud. Las empresas necesitan conocer aquellos factores que afectan a la innovación para incrementar las probabilidades de éxito en el desarrollo de sus productos y, la evaluación de productos sofware es un mecanismo potente para capturar este conocimiento. En consecuencia, las empresas necesitan evaluar sus productos desde la perpectiva de innovación para reducir la distancia entre los productos desarrollados y el mercado. Esto es incluso más relevante en el caso de los productos intensivos en software, donde el tiempo real, la oportunidad, complejidad, interoperabilidad, capacidad de respuesta y compartción de recursos son características críticas de los nuevos sistemas. La evaluación de la innovación de productos ya ha sido estudiada y se han definido algunos esquemas de evaluación pero no son específicos para Sistemas intensivos en Sofwtare; además, no se ha alcanzado consenso en los factores ni el procedimiento de evaluación. Por lo tanto, tiene sentido trabajar en la definición de un marco de evaluación de innovación enfocado a Sistemas intesivos en Software. Esta tesis identifica los elementos necesarios para construir in marco para la evaluación de de Sistemas intensivos en Software desde el punto de vista de la innovación. Se han identificado dos componentes como partes del marco de evaluación: un modelo de referencia y una herramienta adaptativa y personalizable para la realización de la evaluación y posicionamiento de la innovación. El modelo de referencia está compuesto por cuatro elementos principales que caracterizan la evaluación de innovación de productos: los conceptos, modelos de innovación, cuestionarios de evaluación y la evaluación de productos. El modelo de referencia aporta las bases para definir instancias de los modelos de evaluación de innovación de productos que pueden se evaluados y posicionados en la herramienta a través de cuestionarios y que de forma automatizada aporta los resultados de la evaluación y el posicionamiento respecto a la innovación de producto. El modelo de referencia ha sido rigurosamente construido aplicando modelado conceptual e integración de vistas junto con la aplicación de métodos cualitativos de investigación. La herramienta ha sido utilizada para evaluar productos como Skype a través de la instanciación del modelo de referencia. ABSTRACT Innovation in Software intensive Systems is becoming relevant for several reasons: software is present embedded in many sectors like automotive, robotics, mobile phones or heath care. Firms need to have knowledge about factors affecting the innovation to increase the probability of success in their product development and the assessment of innovation in software products is a powerful mechanism to capture this knowledge. Therefore, companies need to assess products from an innovation perspective to reduce the gap between their developed products and the market. This is even more relevant in the case of SiSs, where real time, timeliness, complexity, interoperability, reactivity, and resource sharing are critical features of a new system. Many authors have analysed product innovation assessment and some schemas have been developed but they are not specific to SiSs; in addition, there is no consensus about the factors or the procedures for performing an assessment. Therefore, it has sense to work in the definition of a customized software product innovation evaluation framework. This thesis identifies the elements needed to build a framework to assess software products from the innovation perspective. Two components have been identified as part of the framework to assess Software intensive Systems from the innovation perspective: a reference-model and an adaptive and customizable tool to perform the assessment and to position product innovation. The reference-model is composed by four main elements characterizing product innovation assessment: concepts, innovation models, assessment questionnaires and product assessment. The reference model provides the umbrella to define instances of product innovation assessment models that can be assessed and positioned through questionnaires in the proposed tool that also provides automation in the assessment and positioning of innovation. The reference-model has been rigorously built by applying conceptual modelling and view integration integrated with qualitative research methods. The tool has been used to assess products like Skype through models instantiated from the reference-model.