Semantic coordination through programmable Tuple spaces

Two of the main features of today complex software systems like pervasive computing systems and Internet-based applications are distribution and openness. Distribution revolves around three orthogonal dimensions: (i) distribution of control|systems are characterised by several independent computational entities and devices, each representing an autonomous and proactive locus of control; (ii) spatial distribution|entities and devices are physically distributed and connected in a global (such as the Internet) or local network; and (iii) temporal distribution|interacting system components come and go over time, and are not required to be available for interaction at the same time. Openness deals with the heterogeneity and dynamism of system components: complex computational systems are open to the integration of diverse components, heterogeneous in terms of architecture and technology, and are dynamic since they allow components to be updated, added, or removed while the system is running. The engineering of open and distributed computational systems mandates for the adoption of a software infrastructure whose underlying model and technology could provide the required level of uncoupling among system components. This is the main motivation behind current research trends in the area of coordination middleware to exploit tuple-based coordination models in the engineering of complex software systems, since they intrinsically provide coordinated components with communication uncoupling and further details in the references therein. An additional daunting challenge for tuple-based models comes from knowledge-intensive application scenarios, namely, scenarios where most of the activities are based on knowledge in some form|and where knowledge becomes the prominent means by which systems get coordinated. Handling knowledge in tuple-based systems induces problems in terms of syntax - e.g., two tuples containing the same data may not match due to differences in the tuple structure - and (mostly) of semantics|e.g., two tuples representing the same information may not match based on a dierent syntax adopted. Till now, the problem has been faced by exploiting tuple-based coordination within a middleware for knowledge intensive environments: e.g., experiments with tuple-based coordination within a Semantic Web middleware (surveys analogous approaches). However, they appear to be designed to tackle the design of coordination for specic application contexts like Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, and they result in a rather involved extension of the tuple space model. The main goal of this thesis was to conceive a more general approach to semantic coordination. In particular, it was developed the model and technology of semantic tuple centres. It is adopted the tuple centre model as main coordination abstraction to manage system interactions. A tuple centre can be seen as a programmable tuple space, i.e. an extension of a Linda tuple space, where the behaviour of the tuple space can be programmed so as to react to interaction events. By encapsulating coordination laws within coordination media, tuple centres promote coordination uncoupling among coordinated components. Then, the tuple centre model was semantically enriched: a main design choice in this work was to try not to completely redesign the existing syntactic tuple space model, but rather provide a smooth extension that { although supporting semantic reasoning { keep the simplicity of tuple and tuple matching as easier as possible. By encapsulating the semantic representation of the domain of discourse within coordination media, semantic tuple centres promote semantic uncoupling among coordinated components. The main contributions of the thesis are: (i) the design of the semantic tuple centre model; (ii) the implementation and evaluation of the model based on an existent coordination infrastructure; (iii) a view of the application scenarios in which semantic tuple centres seem to be suitable as coordination media.

Supporting semantic web technologies in the pervasive service ecosystems middleware

Semantic Web technologies are strategic in order to fulfill the openness requirement of Self-Aware Pervasive Service Ecosystems. In fact they provide agents with the ability to cope with distributed data, using RDF to represent information, ontologies to describe relations between concepts from any domain (e.g. equivalence, specialization/extension, and so on) and reasoners to extract implicit knowledge. The aim of this thesis is to study these technologies and design an extension of a pervasive service ecosystems middleware capable of exploiting semantic power, and deepening performance implications.

Conversione per il Semantic Web di dati Turistico-Culturali: il progetto QRPlaces - Semantic Events

Il progetto QRPlaces - Semantic Events, oggetto di questo lavoro, focalizza l’attenzione sull’analisi, la progettazione e l’implementazione di un sistema che sia in grado di modellare i dati, relativi a diversi eventi facenti parte del patrimonio turistico - culturale della Regione Emilia Romagna 1, rendendo evidenti i vantaggi associati ad una rappresentazione formale incentrata sulla Semantica. I dati turistico - culturali sono intesi in questo ambito sia come una rappresentazione di “qualcosa che accade in un certo punto ad un certo momento” (come ad esempio un concerto, una sagra, una raccolta fondi, una rappresentazione teatrale e quant’altro) sia come tradizioni e costumi che costituiscono il patrimonio turistico-culturale e a cui si fa spesso riferimento con il nome di “Cultural Heritage”. Essi hanno la caratteristica intrinseca di richiedere una conoscenza completa di diverse informa- zioni correlata, come informazioni di geo localizzazione relative al luogo fisico che ospita l’evento, dati biografici riferiti all’autore o al soggetto che è presente nell’evento piuttosto che riferirsi ad informazioni che descrivono nel dettaglio tutti gli oggetti, come teatri, cinema, compagnie teatrali che caratterizzano l’evento stesso. Una corretta rappresentazione della conoscenza ad essi legata richiede, pertanto, una modellazione in cui i dati possano essere interconnessi, rivelando un valore informativo che altrimenti resterebbe nascosto. Il lavoro svolto ha avuto lo scopo di realizzare un dataset rispondente alle caratteristiche tipiche del Semantic Web grazie al quale è stato possibile potenziare il circuito di comunicazione e informazione turistica QRPlaces 2. Nello specifico, attraverso la conversione ontologica di dati di vario genere relativi ad eventi dislocati nel territorio, e sfruttando i principi e le tecnologie del Linked Data, si è cercato di ottenere un modello informativo quanto più possibile correlato e arricchito da dati esterni. L’obiettivo finale è stato quello di ottenere una sorgente informativa di dati interconnessi non solo tra loro ma anche con quelli presenti in sorgenti esterne, dando vita ad un percorso di collegamenti in grado di evidenziare una ricchezza informativa utilizzabile per la creazione di valore aggiunto che altrimenti non sarebbe possibile ottenere. Questo aspetto è stato realizzato attraverso un’in- terfaccia di MashUp che utilizza come sorgente il dataset creato e tutti i collegamenti con la rete del Linked Data, in grado di reperire informazioni aggiuntive multi dominio.

Semantic Publishing: issues, solutions and new trends in scholarly publishing within the Semantic Web era

This work is concerned with the increasing relationships between two distinct multidisciplinary research fields, Semantic Web technologies and scholarly publishing, that in this context converge into one precise research topic: Semantic Publishing. In the spirit of the original aim of Semantic Publishing, i.e. the improvement of scientific communication by means of semantic technologies, this thesis proposes theories, formalisms and applications for opening up semantic publishing to an effective interaction between scholarly documents (e.g., journal articles) and their related semantic and formal descriptions. In fact, the main aim of this work is to increase the users' comprehension of documents and to allow document enrichment, discovery and linkage to document-related resources and contexts, such as other articles and raw scientific data. In order to achieve these goals, this thesis investigates and proposes solutions for three of the main issues that semantic publishing promises to address, namely: the need of tools for linking document text to a formal representation of its meaning, the lack of complete metadata schemas for describing documents according to the publishing vocabulary, and absence of effective user interfaces for easily acting on semantic publishing models and theories.

On the path of Exploratory Search Users - A Semantic Web tool

L’Exploratory Search, paradigma di ricerca basato sulle attività di scoperta e d’apprendimento, è stato per diverso tempo ignorato dai motori di ricerca tradizionali. Invece, è spesso dalle ricerche esplorative che nascono le idee più innovative. Le recenti tecnologie del Semantic Web forniscono le soluzioni che permettono d’implementare dei motori di ricerca capaci di accompagnare gli utenti impegnati in tale tipo di ricerca. Aemoo, motore di ricerca sul quale s’appoggia questa tesi ne è un esempio efficace. A partire da quest’ultimo e sempre con l’aiuto delle tecnologie del Web of Data, questo lavoro si propone di fornire una metodologia che permette di prendere in considerazione la singolarità del profilo di ciascun utente al fine di guidarlo nella sua ricerca esplorativa in modo personalizzato. Il criterio di personalizzazione che abbiamo scelto è comportamentale, ovvero basato sulle decisioni che l’utente prende ad ogni tappa che ritma il processo di ricerca. Implementando un prototipo, abbiamo potuto testare la validità di quest’approccio permettendo quindi all’utente di non essere più solo nel lungo e tortuoso cammino che porta alla conoscenza.

La gestione delle relazioni tra soggetto produttore e risorse archivistiche nel semantic web. Un modello ontologico

La ricerca nel campo del cultural heritage management ha adottato negli ultimi decenni le tecnologie web quali strumenti privilegiati per stabilire i nuovi approcci e indirizzi nella valorizzazione della conoscenza. Questa tesi si colloca nell'ambito interdisciplinare tra le scienze umanistiche e informatiche e si fonda sulla consapevolezza del reciproco arricchimento che può derivare dal continuo confronto, le une disponendo di mezzi più espressivi e popolari per divulgare il proprio patrimonio e le altre usufruendo di “materia prima” autorevole (ossia dati strutturati di qualità e alto livello di fiducia) in fase di sperimentazione. Lo studio dei punti di tangenza tra le discipline muove da due ambiti precisi, ovvero le applicazioni informatiche nel campo dell'archivistica e gli sviluppi del semantic web nel settore delle digital humanities.

Sviluppo e verifica di un framework basato su logica computazionale per la selezione dinamica di web services tramite informazioni

La presenza sempre più massiccia di fornitori di servizi basati su web service ha portato in rilievo uno dei limiti di questo approccio, l’impossibilità di rendere automatizzabili i task di ricerca, invocazione e orchestrazione dei servizi. Il raggiungimento di questo obiettivo risulta impossibile a causa della mancanza di informazioni comprensibili ad una macchina attraverso le quali un agente software può effettuare delle scelte tra vari servizi esposti. Il fallimento della “ricerca intelligente” di un servizio pubblicato sta nella stessa modellazione dei servizi. I linguaggi attualmente disponibili permettono di modellare un servizio solo dal punto di vista sintattico. Definire le operazioni proposte, il tipo di parametri accettati e il tipo di output prodotto non è sufficiente a comprendere cosa il servizio può fare. I web services semantici consentono di superare questo limite fornendo uno stack semantico, il quale ha il compito di racchiudere le informazioni relative ai servizi, il loro funzionamento e gli obiettivi raggiungibili organizzando la conoscenza in ontologie. La formalizzazione dei modelli ontologici e la loro integrazione con i servizi esistenti è uno dei problemi più interessanti che ha catturato l’attenzione di numerosi studi di settore. Negli ultimi anni numerose sono state le soluzioni proposte. Tra queste si possono considerare due principali vie di sviluppo che hanno visto un’intensa attività sperimentale. Il primo scenario è volto a modellare in maniera formale la conoscenza legata ai servizi esposti, il secondo integra i servizi già esistenti con nuove strutture semantiche in modo da conservare le infrastrutture presenti. Entrambi i filoni hanno come scopo quello di fornire la conoscenza adatta a sistemi esperti che consentano di automatizzare la ricerca dei servizi in base ai desideri dei clienti, permettendo la loro composizione dinamica basata su un’interazione utile e indipendente dai protocolli che vincolano il trasporto delle informazioni.

Towards an Emergent Semantic Web

In his in uential article about the evolution of the Web, Berners-Lee [1] envisions a Semantic Web in which humans and computers alike are capable of understanding and processing information. This vision is yet to materialize. The main obstacle for the Semantic Web vision is that in today's Web meaning is rooted most often not in formal semantics, but in natural language and, in the sense of semiology, emerges not before interpretation and processing. Yet, an automated form of interpretation and processing can be tackled by precisiating raw natural language. To do that, Web agents extract fuzzy grassroots ontologies through induction from existing Web content. Inductive fuzzy grassroots ontologies thus constitute organically evolved knowledge bases that resemble automated gradual thesauri, which allow precisiating natural language [2]. The Web agents' underlying dynamic, self-organizing, and best-effort induction, enable a sub-syntactical bottom up learning of semiotic associations. Thus, knowledge is induced from the users' natural use of language in mutual Web interactions, and stored in a gradual, thesauri-like lexical-world knowledge database as a top-level ontology, eventually allowing a form of computing with words [3]. Since when computing with words the objects of computation are words, phrases and propositions drawn from natural languages, it proves to be a practical notion to yield emergent semantics for the Semantic Web. In the end, an improved understanding by computers on the one hand should upgrade human- computer interaction on the Web, and, on the other hand allow an initial version of human- intelligence amplification through the Web.

A fuzzy grassroots ontology for improving social semantic web search

The web is continuously evolving into a collection of many data, which results in the interest to collect and merge these data in a meaningful way. Based on that web data, this paper describes the building of an ontology resting on fuzzy clustering techniques. Through continual harvesting folksonomies by web agents, an entire automatic fuzzy grassroots ontology is built. This self-updating ontology can then be used for several practical applications in fields such as web structuring, web searching and web knowledge visualization.A potential application for online reputation analysis, added value and possible future studies are discussed in the conclusion.

A Web Services architecture for UMLS Knowledge Sources.

A web service is a collection of industry standards to enable reusability of services and interoperability of heterogeneous applications. The UMLS Knowledge Source (UMLSKS) Server provides remote access to the UMLSKS and related resources. We propose a Web Services Architecture that encapsulates UMLSKS-API and makes it available in distributed and heterogeneous environments. This is the first step towards intelligent and automatic UMLS services discovery and invocation by computer systems in distributed environments such as web.

Applying Fuzzy Ontologies to Implement the Social Semantic Web

Because the knowledge in the World Wide Web is continuously expanding, Web Knowledge Aggregation, Representation and Reasoning (abbreviated as KR) is becoming increasingly important. This article demonstrates how fuzzy ontologies can be used in KR to improve the interactions between humans and computers. The gap between the Social and Semantic Web can be reduced, and a Social Semantic Web may become possible. As an illustrative example, we demonstrate how fuzzy logic and KR can enhance technologies for cognitive cities. The underlying notion of these technologies is based on connectivism, which can be improved by incorporating the results of digital humanities research.

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).