Modular extensions for modular (Logic) languages

We address the problem of developing mechanisms for easily implementing modular extensions to modular (logic) languages. By(language) extensions we refer to different groups of syntactic definitions and translation rules that extend a language. Our use of the concept of modularity in this context is twofold. We would like these extensions to be modular, in the sense above, i.e., we should be able to develop different extensions mostly separately. At the same time, the sources and targets for the extensions are modular languages, i.e., such extensions may take as input sepárate pieces of code and also produce sepárate pieces of code. Dealing with this double requirement involves interesting challenges to ensure that modularity is not broken: first, combinations of extensions (as if they were a single extensión) must be given a precise meaning. Also, the sepárate translation of múltiple sources (as if they were a single source) must be feasible. We present a detailed description of a code expansion-based framework that proposes novel solutions for these problems. We argüe that the approach, while implemented for Ciao, can be adapted for other Prolog-based systems and languages.

Towards modular extensions for a modular language

Modularity allows the construction of complex designs from simpler, independent units that most of the time can be developed separately. In this paper we are concerned with developing mechanisms for easily implementing modular extensions to modular (logic) languages. By (language) extensions we refer to different groups of syntactic definitions and translation rules that extend a language. Our application of the concept of modularity in this context is twofold. We would like these extensions to be modular, in the above sense, i.e., we should be able to develop different extensions mostly separately. At the same time, the sources and targets for the extensions are modular languages, i.e., such extensions may take as input separate pieces of code and also produce separate pieces of code. Dealing with this double requirement involves interesting challenges to ensure that modularity is not broken: first, combinations of extensions (as if they were a single extension) must be given a precise meaning. Also, the separate translation of multiple sources (as if they were a single source) must be feasible. We present a detailed description of a code expansion-based framework that proposes novel solutions for these problems. We argue that the approach, while implemented for Ciao, can be adapted for other languages and Prolog-based systems.

Reversible language extensions and their application in debugging

A range of methodologies and techniques are available to guide the design and implementation of language extensions and domainspecific languages. A simple yet powerful technique is based on source-tosource transformations interleaved across the compilation passes of a base language. Despite being a successful approach, it has the main drawback that the input source code is lost in the process. When considering the whole workflow of program development (warning and error reporting, debugging, or even program analysis), program translations are no more powerful than a glorified macro language. In this paper, we propose an augmented approach to language extensions for Prolog, where symbolic annotations are included in the target program. These annotations allow selectively reversing the translated code. We illustrate the approach by showing that coupling it with minimal extensions to a generic Prolog debugger allows us to provide users with a familiar, source-level view during the debugging of programs which use a variety of language extensions, such as functional notation, DCGs, or CLP{Q,R}.

Efficiency and spatial equity impacts of high-speed rail extensions in urban areas

Urban areas benefit from significant improvements in accessibility when a new high speed rail (HSR) project is built. These improvements, which are due mainly to a rise in efficiency, produce locational advantagesand increase the attractiveness of these cities, thereby possibly enhancing their competitivenessand economic growth. However, there may be equity issues at stake, as the main accessibility benefits are primarily concentrated in urban areas with a HSR station, whereas other locations obtain only limited benefits. HSR extensions may contribute to an increase in spatial imbalance and lead to more polarized patterns of spatial development. Procedures for assessing the spatial impacts of HSR must therefore follow a twofold approach which addresses issues of both efficiency and equity. This analysis can be made by jointly assessing both the magnitude and distribution of the accessibility improvements deriving from a HSR project. This paper describes an assessment methodology for HSR projects which follows this twofold approach. The procedure uses spatial impact analysis techniques and is based on the computation of accessibility indicators, supported by a Geographical Information System (GIS). Efficiency impacts are assessed in terms of the improvements in accessibility resulting from the HSR project, with a focus on major urban areas; and spatial equity implications are derived from changes in the distribution of accessibility values among these urban agglomerations.

Heavyweight extensions to the UML metamodel to describe the C3 architectural style

UML is widely accepted as the standard for representing the various software artifacts generated by a development process. For this reason, there have been attempts to use this language to represent the software architecture of systems as well. Unfortunately, these attempts have ended in the same representations (boxes and lines) already criticized by the software architecture community.In this work we propose an extension to the UML metamodel that is able to represent the syntactics and semantics of the C3 architectural style. This style is derived from C2. The modifications to define C3 are described in section 4. This proposal is innovative regarding UML extensions for software architectures, since previous proposals where based on light extensions to the UML meta-model, while we propose a heavyweight extension of the metamodel. On the other hand, this proposal is less ambitious than previous proposals, since we do not want to represent in UML any architectural style, but only one: C3.

A parallel implementation of 3D Zernike moment analysis

Zernike polynomials are a well known set of functions that find many applications in image or pattern characterization because they allow to construct shape descriptors that are invariant against translations, rotations or scale changes. The concepts behind them can be extended to higher dimension spaces, making them also fit to describe volumetric data. They have been less used than their properties might suggest due to their high computational cost. We present a parallel implementation of 3D Zernike moments analysis, written in C with CUDA extensions, which makes it practical to employ Zernike descriptors in interactive applications, yielding a performance of several frames per second in voxel datasets about 2003 in size. In our contribution, we describe the challenges of implementing 3D Zernike analysis in a general-purpose GPU. These include how to deal with numerical inaccuracies, due to the high precision demands of the algorithm, or how to deal with the high volume of input data so that it does not become a bottleneck for the system.

On the non-slip boundary condition enforcement in SPH methods.

The implementation of boundary conditions is one of the points where the SPH methodology still has some work to do. The aim of the present work is to provide an in-depth analysis of the most representative mirroring techniques used in SPH to enforce boundary conditions (BC) along solid profiles. We specifically refer to dummy particles, ghost particles, and Takeda et al. [1] boundary integrals. A Pouseuille flow has been used as a example to gradually evaluate the accuracy of the different implementations. Our goal is to test the behavior of the second-order differential operator with the proposed boundary extensions when the smoothing length h and other dicretization parameters as dx/h tend simultaneously to zero. First, using a smoothed continuous approximation of the unidirectional Pouseuille problem, the evolution of the velocity profile has been studied focusing on the values of the velocity and the viscous shear at the boundaries, where the exact solution should be approximated as h decreases. Second, to evaluate the impact of the discretization of the problem, an Eulerian SPH discrete version of the former problem has been implemented and similar results have been monitored. Finally, for the sake of completeness, a 2D Lagrangian SPH implementation of the problem has been also studied to compare the consequences of the particle movement

NetCDF based data archiving system applied to ITER Fast Plant System Control prototype

EURATOM/CIEMAT and Technical University of Madrid (UPM) have been involved in the development of a FPSC [1] (Fast Plant System Control) prototype for ITER, based on PXIe (PCI eXtensions for Instrumentation). One of the main focuses of this project has been data acquisition and all the related issues, including scientific data archiving. Additionally, a new data archiving solution has been developed to demonstrate the obtainable performances and possible bottlenecks of scientific data archiving in Fast Plant System Control. The presented system implements a fault tolerant architecture over a GEthernet network where FPSC data are reliably archived on remote, while remaining accessible to be redistributed, within the duration of a pulse. The storing service is supported by a clustering solution to guaranty scalability, so that FPSC management and configuration may be simplified, and a unique view of all archived data provided. All the involved components have been integrated under EPICS [2] (Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System), implementing in each case the necessary extensions, state machines and configuration process variables. The prototyped solution is based on the NetCDF-4 [3] and [4] (Network Common Data Format) file format in order to incorporate important features, such as scientific data models support, huge size files management, platform independent codification, or single-writer/multiple-readers concurrency. In this contribution, a complete description of the above mentioned solution is presented, together with the most relevant results of the tests performed, while focusing in the benefits and limitations of the applied technologies.

Designing a high performance parallel logic programming system

Compilation techniques such as those portrayed by the Warren Abstract Machine(WAM) have greatly improved the speed of execution of logic programs. The research presented herein is geared towards providing additional performance to logic programs through the use of parallelism, while preserving the conventional semantics of logic languages. Two áreas to which special attention is given are the preservation of sequential performance and storage efficiency, and the use of low overhead mechanisms for controlling parallel execution. Accordingly, the techniques used for supporting parallelism are efficient extensions of those which have brought high inferencing speeds to sequential implementations. At a lower level, special attention is also given to design and simulation detail and to the architectural implications of the execution model behavior. This paper offers an overview of the basic concepts and techniques used in the parallel design, simulation tools used, and some of the results obtained to date.

Global analysis of constraint logic programs

This article presents and illustrates a practical approach to the dataow analysis of constraint logic programming languages using abstract interpretation. It is rst argued that from the framework point of view it suces to propose relatively simple extensions of traditional analysis methods which have already been proved useful and practical and for exist. This is shown by proposing a simple extension of Bruynooghes traditional framework which allows it to analyze constraint logic programs. Then and using this generalized framework two abstract domains and their required abstract functions are presented the rst abstract domain approximates deniteness information and the second one freeness. Finally an approach for cobining those domains is proposed The two domains and their combination have been implemented and used in the analysis of CLP and Prolog III applications. Results from this implementation showing its performance and accuracy are also presented

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).

Reduced certificates for abstraction-carrying code

Abstraction-Carrying Code (ACC) has recently been proposed as a framework for mobile code safety in which the code supplier provides a program together with an abstraction whose validity entails compliance with a predefined safety policy. The abstraction plays thus the role of safety certifícate and its generation is carried out automatically by a fixed-point analyzer. The advantage of providing a (fixedpoint) abstraction to the code consumer is that its validity is checked in a single pass of an abstract interpretation-based checker. A main challenge is to reduce the size of certificates as much as possible while at the same time not increasing checking time. We introduce the notion of reduced certifícate which characterizes the subset of the abstraction which a checker needs in order to validate (and re-construct) the full certifícate in a single pass. Based on this notion, we instrument a generic analysis algorithm with the necessary extensions in order to identify the information relevant to the checker. We also provide a correct checking algorithm together with sufficient conditions for ensuring its completeness. The experimental results within the CiaoPP system show that our proposal is able to greatly reduce the size of certificates in practice.

A syntactic approach to combining functional notation, lazy evaluation, and higher-order in LP systems

Nondeterminism and partially instantiated data structures give logic programming expressive power beyond that of functional programming. However, functional programming often provides convenient syntactic features, such as having a designated implicit output argument, which allow function cali nesting and sometimes results in more compact code. Functional programming also sometimes allows a more direct encoding of lazy evaluation, with its ability to deal with infinite data structures. We present a syntactic functional extensión, used in the Ciao system, which can be implemented in ISO-standard Prolog systems and covers function application, predefined evaluable functors, functional definitions, quoting, and lazy evaluation. The extensión is also composable with higher-order features and can be combined with other extensions to ISO-Prolog such as constraints. We also highlight the features of the Ciao system which help implementation and present some data on the overhead of using lazy evaluation with respect to eager evaluation.

A practical approach to the global analysis of CLP programs

This paper presents and illustrates with an example a practical approach to the dataflow analysis of programs written in constraint logic programming (CLP) languages using abstract interpretation. It is first argued that, from the framework point of view, it sufnces to propose relatively simple extensions of traditional analysis methods which have already been proved useful and practical and for which efncient fixpoint algorithms have been developed. This is shown by proposing a simple but quite general extensión of Bruynooghe's traditional framework to the analysis of CLP programs. In this extensión constraints are viewed not as "suspended goals" but rather as new information in the store, following the traditional view of CLP. Using this approach, and as an example of its use, a complete, constraint system independent, abstract analysis is presented for approximating definiteness information. The analysis is in fact of quite general applicability. It has been implemented and used in the analysis of CLP(R) and Prolog-III applications. Results from the implementation of this analysis are also presented.

On abstraction-carrying code and certificate-size reduction

Abstraction-Carrying Code (ACC) is a framework for mobile code safety in which the code supplier provides a program together with an abstraction (or abstract model of the program) whose validity entails compliance with a predefined safety policy. The abstraction plays thus the role of safety certificate and its generation is carried out automatically by a fixed-point analyzer. The advantage of providing a (fixed-point) abstraction to the code consumer is that its validity is checked in a single pass (i.e., one iteration) of an abstract interpretation-based checker. A main challenge to make ACC useful in practice is to reduce the size of certificates as much as possible, while at the same time not increasing checking time. Intuitively, we only include in the certificate the information which the checker is unable to reproduce without iterating. We introduce the notion of reduced certifícate which characterizes the subset of the abstraction which a checker needs in order to validate (and re-construct) the full certificate in a single pass. Based on this notion, we show how to instrument a generic analysis algorithm with the necessary extensions in order to identify the information relevant to the checker.