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 <Unit, Attribute, Value> 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).

Estructura de una red esencial de señalización que regula la homeostasis iónica en plantas

Las plantas son organismos sésiles que han desarrollado la capacidad para detectar variaciones sutiles en su ambiente y producir respuestas adaptativas mediante rutas de señalización. Los estímulos causados por el estrés biótico y abiótico son numerosos y dependiendo del tiempo de exposición y su intensidad, pueden reducir la tasa de crecimiento de las plantas y la producción. Los cambios en la concentración del calcio citosólico libre constituyen una de las primeras reacciones intracelulares a las situaciones de estrés abiótico. En esta situación, el calcio actúa como segundo mensajero y las variaciones en su concentración son descodificadas por proteínas de unión a calcio. Las más conocidas son las manos-EF y los dominios C2. Los dominios C2 han sido descritos como dominios de unión a lípidos dependientes de calcio. Estos dominios se consideran proteínas periféricas solubles en agua que se asocian de manera reversible a los lípidos de la membrana mediante una o dos regiones funcionales: el sitio de unión a calcio y el sitio polibásico. A pesar de que se conoce la estructura molecular de algunos dominios C2, se desconocen aspectos relacionados como las reglas que dirigen su forma de interaccionar con los diferentes fosfolípidos y proteínas, la posición que ocupan en la bicapa lipídica y su papel en la transmisión de señales. En esta tesis se ha estudiado una proteína de Arabidopsis thaliana (At3g17980) representativa de una nueva familia de proteínas con dominios C2, que consiste únicamente de un dominio C2. Esta proteína, llamada AtC2.1, ha sido clonada en el vector pETM11, expresada en E. coli y purificada a homogeneidad en dos pasos cromatográficos. Se obtuvieron cristales de AtC2.1 de buena calidad mediante técnicas de difusión de vapor. La proteína fue co-cristalizada con calcio, fosfocolina (POC) y el fosfolípido 1,2-dihexanoil-sn-glicero-3-fosfo-L-serina (PSF). Se recogieron ocho conjuntos de datos de difracción de rayos X empleando radiación sincrotrón. Los cristales difractaron hasta 1.6 Å de resolución. Siete de ellos pertenecían al grupo ortorrómbico P212121, con las dimensiones de la celdilla unidad a = 35.3, b = 88.9, c = 110.6 Å, y un cristal pertenecía al grupo espacial monoclínico C2, con a = 124.84, b = 35.27, c = 92.32 Å y = 121.70º. La estructura se resolvió mediante la técnica MR-SAD utilizando el cinc como dispersor anómalo. La estructura cristalina mostró que la molécula forma un dímero en el que cada protómero se pliega como un dominio C2 típico, con la topología tipo II y presenta una inserción de 43 aminoácidos que la diferencia de los dominios C2 conocidos. El mapa de densidad electrónica mostró dos átomos de calcio por protómero. Se resolvieron las estructuras de AtC2.1 en complejo con POC o PSF. En ambos complejos, el análisis cristalográfico detectó máximos de densidad electrónica en la región correspondiente al sitio polibásico formado por las hebras 2, 3 5 y el lazo 3. Éstos se interpretaron correctamente como dos moléculas de POC y un átomo de cinc, en un complejo, y como la cabeza polar del PSF en el otro. AtC2.1 define un sitio de interacción con lípidos dependiente de cinc. En conclusión, en este trabajo se presenta la estructura tridimensional de AtC2.1, miembro representativo de una familia de proteínas de Arabidopsis thaliana, identificadas como proteínas que interaccionan con los receptores de ABA. Estas proteínas están constituidas únicamente por un dominio C2. El análisis conjunto de los datos biofísicos y cristalográficos muestra que AtC2.1 es un sensor de calcio que une lípidos usando dos sitios funcionales. Estos datos sugieren un mecanismo de inserción en membrana dependiente de calcio que trae consigo la disociación de la estructura dimérica y, por consiguiente, un cambio en las propiedades de superficie de la molécula. Este mecanismo proporciona las bases del reconocimiento y transporte de los receptores de ABA y/o otras moléculas a la membrana celular. Plants are sessile organisms that have developed the capacity to detect slight variations of their environment. They are able to perceive biotic and abiotic stress signals and to transduce them by signaling pathways in order to trigger adaptative responses. Stress factors are numerous and, depending on their exposition time and their concentration, can reduce plant growth rate, limiting the productivity of crop plants. Changes in the cytosolic free calcium concentration are observed as one of the earliest intracellular reactions to abiotic stress signals. Calcium plays a key role as a second messenger, and calcium concentration signatures, called calcium signals, are decodified by calcium binding proteins. The main calcium binding structures are the EF-hand motif and the C2 domains. C2 domain is a calcium dependent lipid-binding domain of approximately 130 amino acids. C2 domain displays two functional regions: the Ca-binding region and the polybasic cluster. Both of them can interact with the membrane phospholipids. Despite the number of C2 domain 3D structures currently available, questions about how they interact with the different target phospholipids, their precise spatial position in the lipid bilayer, interactions with other proteins and their role in transmitting signals downstream, have not yet been explored. In this work we have studied an uncharacterized protein from Arabidopsis thaliana (At3g17980) consisting of only a single C2 domain, as member of a new protein C2-domain family. This protein called AtC2.1 was cloned into the pETM11 vector and expressed in E. coli, allowing the purification to homogeneity in two chromatographic steps. Good quality diffracting crystals were obtained using vapor-diffusion techniques. Crystals were co-crystalized with calcium; phosphocholine (POC) and/or the phospholipid 1,2-dihexanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-L-serine (PSF). Eight data set were collected with synchrotron radiation. Crystals diffracted up to 1.6 Å resolution and seven of them belong to the orthorhombic space group P212121, with unit-cell parameters a = 35.3, b = 88.9, c = 110.6 Å. Another crystal was monoclinic, space group C2, with a = 124.84, b = 35.27, c = 92.32 Å and = 121.70º. The structural model was solved by MR-SAD using Zn2+ as anomalous scatterer. The crystal structure shows that the molecule is a dimer. Each monomer was folded as a canonical C2 domain with the topology II with a 43 residues insertion. The electron density map reveals two calcium ions per molecule. Structures of AtC2.1, complexed with POC and PSF, have been solved. Well-defined extra electron densities were found, in both complexes, within the concave surface formed by strands 2, 3, 5 and loop 3 of AtC2.1. These densities were clearly explained by the presence of the two POC molecules, one zinc atom and head groups of PSF, occupying the cavity of the polybasic site. AtC2.1 defines a new metal dependent lipid-binding site into the polybasic site. In conclusion, in this thesis it is presented the molecular structure of AtC2.1, a representative member of a family of Arabidopsis thaliana C2 domain proteins, of unknown function, but identified as a molecular interacting unit of the ABA receptors. The joint analyses of the biophysical and crystallographic data show that AtC2.1 is a calcium sensor that binds lipids in two sites and suggest a model of calcium-dependent membrane insertion mechanism that will involve either dimer dissociation or a strong rearrangement of the dimeric structure. This mechanism may be the basis for the recognition and delivery of ABA receptors or other protein molecules to cell membranes.

Remote Delivery of Video Services over video links

The spreading of new systems of broadcasting and distribution of multimedia content has had as a consequence a larger need for aggregation of data and metadata to traditionally based contents of video and audio supply. Broadcasting chains of this type of channels have become overwhelmed by the quantity of resources, infrastructures and development needed for these channels to provide information. In order to avoid this kind of shortcomings, several recommendations and standards have been created to exchange metadata between production and distribution of taped programs. The problem lies in live programs, producers sometimes offer data to channels but most often, channels are not able to face required developments. The key to this problem is cost reduction. In this work, a study is conducted on added services which producers may provide to the media about content; a system is found by which additional communication expenses are not made and a model of information transfer is offered which allows low cost developments to supply new media platforms.

Control of integrated unit operations

As a thermal separation method, distillation is one of the most important technologies in the chemical industry. Given its importance, it is no surprise that increasing efforts have been made in reducing its energy inefficiencies. A great deal of research is focused in the design and optimization of the Divided-Wall Column. Its applications are still reduced due to distrust of its controllability. Previous references studied the decentralized control of DWC but still few papers deal about Model Predictive Control. In this work we present a decentralized control of both a DWC column along with its equivalent MPC schema.

Perceptual distortion modeling for side-by-side 3D video delivery

A frame-level distortion model based on perceptual features of the human visual system is proposed to improve the performance of unequal error protection strategies and provide better quality of experience to users in Side-by-Side 3D video delivery systems.

A proposal for a model-based approach for adapting software configuration to runtime environments

Las metodologías de desarrollo ágiles han sufrido un gran auge en entornos industriales durante los últimos años debido a la rapidez y fiabilidad de los procesos de desarrollo que proponen. La filosofía DevOps y específicamente las metodologías derivadas de ella como Continuous Delivery o Continuous Deployment promueven la gestión completamente automatizada del ciclo de vida de las aplicaciones, desde el código fuente a las aplicaciones ejecutándose en entornos de producción. La automatización se ve como un medio para producir procesos repetibles, fiables y rápidos. Sin embargo, no todas las partes de las metodologías Continuous están completamente automatizadas. En particular, la gestión de la configuración de los parámetros de ejecución es un problema que ha sido acrecentado por la elasticidad y escalabilidad que proporcionan las tecnologías de computación en la nube. La mayoría de las herramientas de despliegue actuales pueden automatizar el despliegue de la configuración de parámetros de ejecución, pero no ofrecen soporte a la hora de fijar esos parámetros o de validar los ficheros que despliegan, principalmente debido al gran abanico de opciones de configuración y el hecho de que el valor de muchos de esos parámetros es fijado en base a preferencias expresadas por el usuario. Esto hecho hace que pueda parecer que cualquier solución al problema debe estar ajustada a una aplicación específica en lugar de ofrecer una solución general. Con el objetivo de solucionar este problema, propongo un modelo de configuración que puede ser inferido a partir de instancias de configuración existentes y que puede reflejar las preferencias de los usuarios para ser usado para facilitar los procesos de configuración. El modelo de configuración puede ser usado como la base de un proceso de configuración interactivo capaz de guiar a un operador humano a través de la configuración de una aplicación para su despliegue en un entorno determinado o para detectar cambios de configuración automáticamente y producir una configuración válida que se ajuste a esos cambios. Además, el modelo de configuración debería ser gestionado como si se tratase de cualquier otro artefacto software y debería ser incorporado a las prácticas de gestión habituales. Por eso también propongo un modelo de gestión de servicios que incluya información relativa a la configuración de parámetros de ejecución y que además es capaz de describir y gestionar propuestas arquitectónicas actuales tales como los arquitecturas de microservicios. ABSTRACT Agile development methodologies have risen in popularity within the industry in recent years due to the speed and reliability of the processes they propose. The DevOps philosophy and specifically the methodologies derived from it such as Continuous Delivery and Continuous Deployment push for a totally automated management of the application lifecycle, from the source code to the software running in production environment. Automation in this regard is used as a means to produce repeatable, reliable and fast processes. However, not all parts of the Continuous methodologies are completely automatized. In particular, management of runtime parameter configuration is a problem that has increased its impact in deployment process due to the scalability and elasticity provided by cloud technologies. Most deployment tools nowadays can automate the deployment of runtime parameter configuration, but they offer no support for parameter setting o configuration validation, as the range of different configuration options and the fact that the value of many of those parameters is based on user preference seems to imply that any solution to the problem will have to be tailored to a specific application. With the aim to solve this problem I propose a configuration model that can be inferred from existing configurations and reflect user preferences in order to ease the configuration process. The configuration model can be used as the base of an interactive configuration process capable of guiding a human operator through the configuration of an application for its deployment in a specific environment or to automatically detect configuration changes and produce valid runtime parameter configurations that take into account those changes. Additionally, the configuration model should be managed as any other software artefact and should be incorporated into current management practices. I also propose a service management model that includes the configuration information and that is able to describe and manage current architectural practices such as the microservices architecture.