Modelo de arquitectura para gestión cooperativa de sistemas y servicios distribuidos basado en agentes autónomos

La creciente complejidad, heterogeneidad y dinamismo inherente a las redes de telecomunicaciones, los sistemas distribuidos y los servicios avanzados de información y comunicación emergentes, así como el incremento de su criticidad e importancia estratégica, requieren la adopción de tecnologías cada vez más sofisticadas para su gestión, su coordinación y su integración por parte de los operadores de red, los proveedores de servicio y las empresas, como usuarios finales de los mismos, con el fin de garantizar niveles adecuados de funcionalidad, rendimiento y fiabilidad. Las estrategias de gestión adoptadas tradicionalmente adolecen de seguir modelos excesivamente estáticos y centralizados, con un elevado componente de supervisión y difícilmente escalables. La acuciante necesidad por flexibilizar esta gestión y hacerla a la vez más escalable y robusta, ha provocado en los últimos años un considerable interés por desarrollar nuevos paradigmas basados en modelos jerárquicos y distribuidos, como evolución natural de los primeros modelos jerárquicos débilmente distribuidos que sucedieron al paradigma centralizado. Se crean así nuevos modelos como son los basados en Gestión por Delegación, en el paradigma de código móvil, en las tecnologías de objetos distribuidos y en los servicios web. Estas alternativas se han mostrado enormemente robustas, flexibles y escalables frente a las estrategias tradicionales de gestión, pero continúan sin resolver aún muchos problemas. Las líneas actuales de investigación parten del hecho de que muchos problemas de robustez, escalabilidad y flexibilidad continúan sin ser resueltos por el paradigma jerárquico-distribuido, y abogan por la migración hacia un paradigma cooperativo fuertemente distribuido. Estas líneas tienen su germen en la Inteligencia Artificial Distribuida (DAI) y, más concretamente, en el paradigma de agentes autónomos y en los Sistemas Multi-agente (MAS). Todas ellas se perfilan en torno a un conjunto de objetivos que pueden resumirse en alcanzar un mayor grado de autonomía en la funcionalidad de la gestión y una mayor capacidad de autoconfiguración que resuelva los problemas de escalabilidad y la necesidad de supervisión presentes en los sistemas actuales, evolucionar hacia técnicas de control fuertemente distribuido y cooperativo guiado por la meta y dotar de una mayor riqueza semántica a los modelos de información. Cada vez más investigadores están empezando a utilizar agentes para la gestión de redes y sistemas distribuidos. Sin embargo, los límites establecidos en sus trabajos entre agentes móviles (que siguen el paradigma de código móvil) y agentes autónomos (que realmente siguen el paradigma cooperativo) resultan difusos. Muchos de estos trabajos se centran en la utilización de agentes móviles, lo cual, al igual que ocurría con las técnicas de código móvil comentadas anteriormente, les permite dotar de un mayor componente dinámico al concepto tradicional de Gestión por Delegación. Con ello se consigue flexibilizar la gestión, distribuir la lógica de gestión cerca de los datos y distribuir el control. Sin embargo se permanece en el paradigma jerárquico distribuido. Si bien continúa sin definirse aún una arquitectura de gestión fiel al paradigma cooperativo fuertemente distribuido, estas líneas de investigación han puesto de manifiesto serios problemas de adecuación en los modelos de información, comunicación y organizativo de las arquitecturas de gestión existentes. En este contexto, la tesis presenta un modelo de arquitectura para gestión holónica de sistemas y servicios distribuidos mediante sociedades de agentes autónomos, cuyos objetivos fundamentales son el incremento del grado de automatización asociado a las tareas de gestión, el aumento de la escalabilidad de las soluciones de gestión, soporte para delegación tanto por dominios como por macro-tareas, y un alto grado de interoperabilidad en entornos abiertos. A partir de estos objetivos se ha desarrollado un modelo de información formal de tipo semántico, basado en lógica descriptiva que permite un mayor grado de automatización en la gestión en base a la utilización de agentes autónomos racionales, capaces de razonar, inferir e integrar de forma dinámica conocimiento y servicios conceptualizados mediante el modelo CIM y formalizados a nivel semántico mediante lógica descriptiva. El modelo de información incluye además un “mapping” a nivel de meta-modelo de CIM al lenguaje de especificación de ontologías OWL, que supone un significativo avance en el área de la representación y el intercambio basado en XML de modelos y meta-información. A nivel de interacción, el modelo aporta un lenguaje de especificación formal de conversaciones entre agentes basado en la teoría de actos ilocucionales y aporta una semántica operacional para dicho lenguaje que facilita la labor de verificación de propiedades formales asociadas al protocolo de interacción. Se ha desarrollado también un modelo de organización holónico y orientado a roles cuyas principales características están alineadas con las demandadas por los servicios distribuidos emergentes e incluyen la ausencia de control central, capacidades de reestructuración dinámica, capacidades de cooperación, y facilidades de adaptación a diferentes culturas organizativas. El modelo incluye un submodelo normativo adecuado al carácter autónomo de los holones de gestión y basado en las lógicas modales deontológica y de acción.---ABSTRACT---The growing complexity, heterogeneity and dynamism inherent in telecommunications networks, distributed systems and the emerging advanced information and communication services, as well as their increased criticality and strategic importance, calls for the adoption of increasingly more sophisticated technologies for their management, coordination and integration by network operators, service providers and end-user companies to assure adequate levels of functionality, performance and reliability. The management strategies adopted traditionally follow models that are too static and centralised, have a high supervision component and are difficult to scale. The pressing need to flexibilise management and, at the same time, make it more scalable and robust recently led to a lot of interest in developing new paradigms based on hierarchical and distributed models, as a natural evolution from the first weakly distributed hierarchical models that succeeded the centralised paradigm. Thus new models based on management by delegation, the mobile code paradigm, distributed objects and web services came into being. These alternatives have turned out to be enormously robust, flexible and scalable as compared with the traditional management strategies. However, many problems still remain to be solved. Current research lines assume that the distributed hierarchical paradigm has as yet failed to solve many of the problems related to robustness, scalability and flexibility and advocate migration towards a strongly distributed cooperative paradigm. These lines of research were spawned by Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) and, specifically, the autonomous agent paradigm and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). They all revolve around a series of objectives, which can be summarised as achieving greater management functionality autonomy and a greater self-configuration capability, which solves the problems of scalability and the need for supervision that plague current systems, evolving towards strongly distributed and goal-driven cooperative control techniques and semantically enhancing information models. More and more researchers are starting to use agents for network and distributed systems management. However, the boundaries established in their work between mobile agents (that follow the mobile code paradigm) and autonomous agents (that really follow the cooperative paradigm) are fuzzy. Many of these approximations focus on the use of mobile agents, which, as was the case with the above-mentioned mobile code techniques, means that they can inject more dynamism into the traditional concept of management by delegation. Accordingly, they are able to flexibilise management, distribute management logic about data and distribute control. However, they remain within the distributed hierarchical paradigm. While a management architecture faithful to the strongly distributed cooperative paradigm has yet to be defined, these lines of research have revealed that the information, communication and organisation models of existing management architectures are far from adequate. In this context, this dissertation presents an architectural model for the holonic management of distributed systems and services through autonomous agent societies. The main objectives of this model are to raise the level of management task automation, increase the scalability of management solutions, provide support for delegation by both domains and macro-tasks and achieve a high level of interoperability in open environments. Bearing in mind these objectives, a descriptive logic-based formal semantic information model has been developed, which increases management automation by using rational autonomous agents capable of reasoning, inferring and dynamically integrating knowledge and services conceptualised by means of the CIM model and formalised at the semantic level by means of descriptive logic. The information model also includes a mapping, at the CIM metamodel level, to the OWL ontology specification language, which amounts to a significant advance in the field of XML-based model and metainformation representation and exchange. At the interaction level, the model introduces a formal specification language (ACSL) of conversations between agents based on speech act theory and contributes an operational semantics for this language that eases the task of verifying formal properties associated with the interaction protocol. A role-oriented holonic organisational model has also been developed, whose main features meet the requirements demanded by emerging distributed services, including no centralised control, dynamic restructuring capabilities, cooperative skills and facilities for adaptation to different organisational cultures. The model includes a normative submodel adapted to management holon autonomy and based on the deontic and action modal logics.

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).

A multidisciplinary reference framework to support innovative design, implementation and assessment of chronic care models

Hoy en día, por primera vez en la historia, la mayor parte de la población podrá vivir hasta los sesenta años y más (United Nations, 2015). Sin embargo, todavía existe poca evidencia que demuestre que las personas mayores, estén viviendo con mejor salud que sus padres, a la misma edad, ya que la mayoría de los problemas de salud en edades avanzadas están asociados a las enfermedades crónicas (WHO, 2015). Los sistemas sanitarios de los países desarrollados funcionan adecuadamente cuando se trata del cuidado de enfermedades agudas, pero no son lo suficientemente eficaces en la gestión de las enfermedades crónicas. Durante la última década, se han realizado esfuerzos para mejorar esta gestión, por medio de la utilización de estrategias de prevención y de reenfoque de la provisión de los servicios de atención para la salud (Kane et al. 2005). Según una revisión sistemática de modelos de cuidado de salud, comisionada por el sistema nacional de salud Británico, pocos modelos han conceptualizado cuáles son los componentes que hay que utilizar para proporcionar un cuidado crónico efectivo, y estos componentes no han sido suficientemente estructurados y articulados. Por lo tanto, no hay suficiente evidencia sobre el impacto real de cualquier modelo existente en la actualidad (Ham, 2006). Las innovaciones podrían ayudar a conseguir mejores diagnósticos, tratamientos y gestión de pacientes crónicos, así como a dar soporte a los profesionales y a los pacientes en el cuidado. Sin embargo, la forma en las que estas innovaciones se proporcionan no es lo suficientemente eficiente, efectiva y amigable para el usuario. Para mejorar esto, hace falta crear equipos de trabajo y estrategias multidisciplinares. En conclusión, hacen falta actividades que permitan conseguir que las innovaciones sean utilizadas en los sistemas de salud que quieren mejorar la gestión del cuidado crónico, para que sea posible: 1) traducir la “atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia” en “conocimiento factible”; 2) hacer frente a la complejidad de la atención sanitaria a través de una investigación multidisciplinaria; 3) identificar una aproximación sistemática para que se establezcan intervenciones innovadoras en el cuidado de salud. El marco de referencia desarrollado en este trabajo de investigación es un intento de aportar estas mejoras. Las siguientes hipótesis han sido propuestas: Hipótesis 1: es posible definir un proceso de traducción que convierta un modelo de cuidado crónico en una descripción estructurada de objetivos, requisitos e indicadores clave de rendimiento. Hipótesis 2: el proceso de traducción, si se ejecuta a través de elementos basados en la evidencia, multidisciplinares y de orientación económica, puede convertir un modelo de cuidado crónico en un marco descriptivo, que define el ciclo de vida de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado de enfermedades crónicas. Hipótesis 3: es posible definir un método para evaluar procesos, resultados y capacidad de desarrollar habilidades, y asistir equipos multidisciplinares en la creación de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado crónico. Hipótesis 4: es posible dar soporte al desarrollo de soluciones innovadoras para el cuidado crónico a través de un marco de referencia y conseguir efectos positivos, medidos en indicadores clave de rendimiento. Para verificar las hipótesis, se ha definido una aproximación metodológica compuesta de cuatro Fases, cada una asociada a una hipótesis. Antes de esto, se ha llevado a cabo una “Fase 0”, donde se han analizado los antecedentes sobre el problema (i.e. adopción sistemática de la innovación en el cuidado crónico) desde una perspectiva multi-dominio y multi-disciplinar. Durante la fase 1, se ha desarrollado un Proceso de Traducción del Conocimiento, elaborado a partir del JBI Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of evidence-based healthcare (Pearson, 2005), y sobre el cual se han definido cuatro Bloques de Innovación. Estos bloques consisten en una descripción de elementos innovadores, definidos en la fase 0, que han sido añadidos a los cuatros elementos que componen el modelo JBI. El trabajo llevado a cabo en esta fase ha servido también para definir los materiales que el proceso de traducción tiene que ejecutar. La traducción que se ha llevado a cabo en la fase 2, y que traduce la mejor evidencia disponible de cuidado crónico en acción: resultado de este proceso de traducción es la parte descriptiva del marco de referencia, que consiste en una descripción de un modelo de cuidado crónico (se ha elegido el Chronic Care Model, Wagner, 1996) en términos de objetivos, especificaciones e indicadores clave de rendimiento y organizada en tres ciclos de innovación (diseño, implementación y evaluación). Este resultado ha permitido verificar la segunda hipótesis. Durante la fase 3, para demostrar la tercera hipótesis, se ha desarrollado un método-mixto de evaluación de equipos multidisciplinares que trabajan en innovaciones para el cuidado crónico. Este método se ha creado a partir del método mixto usado para la evaluación de equipo multidisciplinares translacionales (Wooden, 2013). El método creado añade una dimensión procedural al marco. El resultado de esta fase consiste, por lo tanto, en una primera versión del marco de referencia, lista para ser experimentada. En la fase 4, se ha validado el marco a través de un caso de estudio multinivel y con técnicas de observación-participante como método de recolección de datos. Como caso de estudio se han elegido las actividades de investigación que el grupo de investigación LifeStech ha desarrollado desde el 2008 para mejorar la gestión de la diabetes, actividades realizadas en un contexto internacional. Los resultados demuestran que el marco ha permitido mejorar las actividades de trabajo en distintos niveles: 1) la calidad y cantidad de las publicaciones; 2) se han conseguido dos contratos de investigación sobre diabetes: el primero es un proyecto de investigación aplicada, el segundo es un proyecto financiado para acelerar las innovaciones en el mercado; 3) a través de los indicadores claves de rendimiento propuestos en el marco, una prueba de concepto de un prototipo desarrollado en un proyecto de investigación ha sido transformada en una evaluación temprana de una intervención eHealth para el manejo de la diabetes, que ha sido recientemente incluida en Repositorio de prácticas innovadoras del Partenariado de Innovación Europeo en Envejecimiento saludable y activo. La verificación de las 4 hipótesis ha permitido demonstrar la hipótesis principal de este trabajo de investigación: es posible contribuir a crear un puente entre la atención sanitaria y la innovación y, por lo tanto, mejorar la manera en que el cuidado crónico sea procurado en los sistemas sanitarios. ABSTRACT Nowadays, for the first time in history, most people can expect to live into their sixties and beyond (United Nations, 2015). However, little evidence suggests that older people are experiencing better health than their parents, and most of the health problems of older age are linked to Chronic Diseases (WHO, 2015). The established health care systems in developed countries are well suited to the treatment of acute diseases but are mostly inadequate for dealing with CDs. Healthcare systems are challenging the burden of chronic diseases by putting more emphasis on the prevention of disease and by looking for new ways to reorient the provision of care (Kane et al., 2005). According to an evidence-based review commissioned by the British NHS Institute, few models have conceptualized effective components of care for CDs and these components have been not structured and articulated. “Consequently, there is limited evidence about the real impact of any of the existing models” (Ham, 2006). Innovations could support to achieve better diagnosis, treatment and management for patients across the continuum of care, by supporting health professionals and empowering patients to take responsibility. However, the way they are delivered is not sufficiently efficient, effective and consumer friendly. The improvement of innovation delivery, involves the creation of multidisciplinary research teams and taskforces, rather than just working teams. There are several actions to improve the adoption of innovations from healthcare systems that are tackling the epidemics of CDs: 1) Translate Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBH) into actionable knowledge; 2) Face the complexity of healthcare through multidisciplinary research; 3) Identify a systematic approach to support effective implementation of healthcare interventions through innovation. The framework proposed in this research work is an attempt to provide these improvements. The following hypotheses have been drafted: Hypothesis 1: it is possible to define a translation process to convert a model of chronic care into a structured description of goals, requirements and key performance indicators. Hypothesis 2: a translation process, if executed through evidence-based, multidisciplinary, holistic and business-oriented elements, can convert a model of chronic care in a descriptive framework, which defines the whole development cycle of innovative solutions for chronic disease management. Hypothesis 3: it is possible to design a method to evaluate processes, outcomes and skill acquisition capacities, and assist multidisciplinary research teams in the creation of innovative solutions for chronic disease management. Hypothesis 4: it is possible to assist the development of innovative solutions for chronic disease management through a reference framework and produce positive effects, measured through key performance indicators. In order to verify the hypotheses, a methodological approach, composed of four Phases that correspond to each one of the stated hypothesis, was defined. Prior to this, a “Phase 0”, consisting in a multi-domain and multi-disciplinary background analysis of the problem (i.e.: systematic adoption of innovation to chronic care), was carried out. During phase 1, in order to verify the first hypothesis, a Knowledge Translation Process (KTP) was developed, starting from the JBI Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of evidence-based healthcare was used (Pearson, 2005) and adding Four Innovation Blocks. These blocks represent an enriched description, added to the JBI model, to accelerate the transformation of evidence-healthcare through innovation; the innovation blocks are built on top of the conclusions drawn after Phase 0. The background analysis gave also indication on the materials and methods to be used for the execution of the KTP, carried out during phase 2, that translates the actual best available evidence for chronic care into action: this resulted in a descriptive Framework, which is a description of a model of chronic care (the Chronic Care Model was chosen, Wagner, 1996) in terms of goals, specified requirements and Key Performance Indicators, and articulated in the three development cycles of innovation (i.e. design, implementation and evaluation). Thanks to this result the second hypothesis was verified. During phase 3, in order to verify the third hypothesis, a mixed-method to evaluate multidisciplinary teams working on innovations for chronic care, was created, based on a mixed-method used for the evaluation of Multidisciplinary Translational Teams (Wooden, 2013). This method adds a procedural dimension to the descriptive component of the Framework, The result of this phase consisted in a draft version of the framework, ready to be tested in a real scenario. During phase 4, a single and multilevel case study, with participant-observation data collection, was carried out, in order to have a complete but at the same time multi-sectorial evaluation of the framework. The activities that the LifeStech research group carried out since 2008 to improve the management of diabetes have been selected as case study. The results achieved showed that the framework allowed to improve the research activities in different directions: the quality and quantity of the research publications that LifeStech has issued, have increased substantially; 2 project grants to improve the management of diabetes, have been assigned: the first is a grant funding applied research while the second is about accelerating innovations into the market; by using the assessment KPIs of the framework, the proof of concept validation of a prototype developed in a research project was transformed into an early stage assessment of innovative eHealth intervention for Diabetes Management, which has been recently included in the repository of innovative practice of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Health Ageing initiative. The verification of the 4 hypotheses lead to verify the main hypothesis of this research work: it is possible to contribute to bridge the gap between healthcare and innovation and, in turn, improve the way chronic care is delivered by healthcare systems.