Analisi di riferimenti bibliografici in documenti XML

Con il seguente elaborato propongo di presentare il lavoro svolto sui documenti XML che ci sono stati forniti. Più nello specifico, il lavoro è incentrato sui riferimenti bibliografici presenti in ogni documento e ha come fine l'elaborazione delle informazioni estrapolate al fine di poterle esportare nel formato RDF (Resource Description Framework). I documenti XML (eXtensible Markup Language) fornitimi provengono dalla casa editrice Elsevier, una delle più grandi case editrici di articoli scientifici organizzati in riviste specializzate (journal).

Tool per lo sviluppo di ontologie per il web semantico

La trattazione di questa tesi ha lo scopo di fornire esempi di ontologie, nonché una panoramica sugli editor per la creazione e lo sviluppo di queste, evidenziandone pregi e difetti. Dopo un’introduzione generale al Web Semantico, tale documento fornisce dei tutorial, sempre affiancati da molteplici screenshot e da tutto il codice necessario, molto utili per “avventurarsi” nello sviluppo di ontologie. Le ontologie, per essere fruibili, devono essere pubblicate. Si è deciso pertanto di dare una descrizione dei principali vocabolari attualmente utilizzati nell’ambito del Web Semantico, così da dare un’idea al lettore dei diversi tipi di vocabolario presenti sul web. Infine è stato esaminato Jena: un framework per le applicazioni del Web Semantico sviluppate in Java. Anche in questo caso è stato creato un tutorial in cui tale framework è stato integrato in Eclipse. Vengono mostrati l’installazione delle librerie, l’importazione e l’interrogazione di un file RDF. Poiché per importare un file RDF il lettore deve averne uno, è stata colta l’occasione per fornire anche una guida utile alla creazione di un documento RDF, attraverso FOAF-a-Matic, un’applicazione Javascript che permette di creare una descrizione di se stessi in formato FOAF.

Knowledge Patterns for the Web: extraction, tranformation and reuse

This thesis aims at investigating methods and software architectures for discovering what are the typical and frequently occurring structures used for organizing knowledge in the Web. We identify these structures as Knowledge Patterns (KPs). KP discovery needs to address two main research problems: the heterogeneity of sources, formats and semantics in the Web (i.e., the knowledge soup problem) and the difficulty to draw relevant boundary around data that allows to capture the meaningful knowledge with respect to a certain context (i.e., the knowledge boundary problem). Hence, we introduce two methods that provide different solutions to these two problems by tackling KP discovery from two different perspectives: (i) the transformation of KP-like artifacts to KPs formalized as OWL2 ontologies; (ii) the bottom-up extraction of KPs by analyzing how data are organized in Linked Data. The two methods address the knowledge soup and boundary problems in different ways. The first method provides a solution to the two aforementioned problems that is based on a purely syntactic transformation step of the original source to RDF followed by a refactoring step whose aim is to add semantics to RDF by select meaningful RDF triples. The second method allows to draw boundaries around RDF in Linked Data by analyzing type paths. A type path is a possible route through an RDF that takes into account the types associated to the nodes of a path. Then we present K~ore, a software architecture conceived to be the basis for developing KP discovery systems and designed according to two software architectural styles, i.e, the Component-based and REST. Finally we provide an example of reuse of KP based on Aemoo, an exploratory search tool which exploits KPs for performing entity summarization.

Estrazione e annotazione di una rete citazionale da articoli scientifici

Lavoro svolto per la creazione di una rete citazionale a partire da articoli scientifici codificati in XML JATS. Viene effettuata un'introduzione sul semantic publishing, le ontologie di riferimento e i principali dataset su pubblicazioni scientifiche. Infine viene presentato il prototipo CiNeX che si occupa di estrarre da un dataset in XML JATS un grafo RDF utilizzando l'ontologia SPAR.

Searching and retrieving in content-based repositories of formal mathematical knowledge

In this thesis, the author presents a query language for an RDF (Resource Description Framework) database and discusses its applications in the context of the HELM project (the Hypertextual Electronic Library of Mathematics). This language aims at meeting the main requirements coming from the RDF community. in particular it includes: a human readable textual syntax and a machine-processable XML (Extensible Markup Language) syntax both for queries and for query results, a rigorously exposed formal semantics, a graph-oriented RDF data access model capable of exploring an entire RDF graph (including both RDF Models and RDF Schemata), a full set of Boolean operators to compose the query constraints, fully customizable and highly structured query results having a 4-dimensional geometry, some constructions taken from ordinary programming languages that simplify the formulation of complex queries. The HELM project aims at integrating the modern tools for the automation of formal reasoning with the most recent electronic publishing technologies, in order create and maintain a hypertextual, distributed virtual library of formal mathematical knowledge. In the spirit of the Semantic Web, the documents of this library include RDF metadata describing their structure and content in a machine-understandable form. Using the author's query engine, HELM exploits this information to implement some functionalities allowing the interactive and automatic retrieval of documents on the basis of content-aware requests that take into account the mathematical nature of these documents.

Analisi sulla crescita e sulle funzioni dei Linked Open Data - LODStories

L'Open Data, letteralmente “dati aperti”, è la corrente di pensiero (e il relativo “movimento”) che cerca di rispondere all'esigenza di poter disporre di dati legalmente “aperti”, ovvero liberamente re-usabili da parte del fruitore, per qualsiasi scopo. L’obiettivo dell’Open Data può essere raggiunto per legge, come negli USA dove l’informazione generata dal settore pubblico federale è in pubblico dominio, oppure per scelta dei detentori dei diritti, tramite opportune licenze. Per motivare la necessità di avere dei dati in formato aperto, possiamo usare una comparazione del tipo: l'Open Data sta al Linked Data, come la rete Internet sta al Web. L'Open Data, quindi, è l’infrastruttura (o la “piattaforma”) di cui il Linked Data ha bisogno per poter creare la rete di inferenze tra i vari dati sparsi nel Web. Il Linked Data, in altre parole, è una tecnologia ormai abbastanza matura e con grandi potenzialità, ma ha bisogno di grandi masse di dati tra loro collegati, ossia “linkati”, per diventare concretamente utile. Questo, in parte, è già stato ottenuto ed è in corso di miglioramento, grazie a progetti come DBpedia o FreeBase. In parallelo ai contributi delle community online, un altro tassello importante – una sorta di “bulk upload” molto prezioso – potrebbe essere dato dalla disponibilità di grosse masse di dati pubblici, idealmente anche già linkati dalle istituzioni stesse o comunque messi a disposizione in modo strutturato – che aiutino a raggiungere una “massa” di Linked Data. A partire dal substrato, rappresentato dalla disponibilità di fatto dei dati e dalla loro piena riutilizzabilità (in modo legale), il Linked Data può offrire una potente rappresentazione degli stessi, in termini di relazioni (collegamenti): in questo senso, Linked Data ed Open Data convergono e raggiungono la loro piena realizzazione nell’approccio Linked Open Data. L’obiettivo di questa tesi è quello di approfondire ed esporre le basi sul funzionamento dei Linked Open Data e gli ambiti in cui vengono utilizzati.

Studies of spatial clustering of inertial particles in turbulence

We present studies of the spatial clustering of inertial particles embedded in turbulent flow. A major part of the thesis is experimental, involving the technique of Phase Doppler Interferometry (PDI). The thesis also includes significant amount of simulation studies and some theoretical considerations. We describe the details of PDI and explain why it is suitable for study of particle clustering in turbulent flow with a strong mean velocity. We introduce the concept of the radial distribution function (RDF) as our chosen way of quantifying inertial particle clustering and present some original works on foundational and practical considerations related to it. These include methods of treating finite sampling size, interpretation of the magnitude of RDF and the possibility of isolating RDF signature of inertial clustering from that of large scale mixing. In experimental work, we used the PDI to observe clustering of water droplets in a turbulent wind tunnel. From that we present, in the form of a published paper, evidence of dynamical similarity (Stokes number similarity) of inertial particle clustering together with other results in qualitative agreement with available theoretical prediction and simulation results. We next show detailed quantitative comparisons of results from our experiments, direct-numerical-simulation (DNS) and theory. Very promising agreement was found for like-sized particles (mono-disperse). Theory is found to be incorrect regarding clustering of different-sized particles and we propose a empirical correction based on the DNS and experimental results. Besides this, we also discovered a few interesting characteristics of inertial clustering. Firstly, through observations, we found an intriguing possibility for modeling the RDF arising from inertial clustering that has only one (sensitive) parameter. We also found that clustering becomes saturated at high Reynolds number.

Kunṭres Ḥevrat Rodfe Ḥesed : tokho yevoar ʿal ma ʿamude ḥevratenu ḥevrat g. ḥ. yusdu, ṿe-gam taḳanoteha ha-yesharot

Text in hebr. und jidd., in hebr. Schr.

BIOMEDICAL LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDING AND EXTRACTION (BLUE-TEXT): A MINIMAL SYNTACTIC, SEMANTIC METHOD

Clinical text understanding (CTU) is of interest to health informatics because critical clinical information frequently represented as unconstrained text in electronic health records are extensively used by human experts to guide clinical practice, decision making, and to document delivery of care, but are largely unusable by information systems for queries and computations. Recent initiatives advocating for translational research call for generation of technologies that can integrate structured clinical data with unstructured data, provide a unified interface to all data, and contextualize clinical information for reuse in multidisciplinary and collaborative environment envisioned by CTSA program. This implies that technologies for the processing and interpretation of clinical text should be evaluated not only in terms of their validity and reliability in their intended environment, but also in light of their interoperability, and ability to support information integration and contextualization in a distributed and dynamic environment. This vision adds a new layer of information representation requirements that needs to be accounted for when conceptualizing implementation or acquisition of clinical text processing tools and technologies for multidisciplinary research. On the other hand, electronic health records frequently contain unconstrained clinical text with high variability in use of terms and documentation practices, and without commitmentto grammatical or syntactic structure of the language (e.g. Triage notes, physician and nurse notes, chief complaints, etc). This hinders performance of natural language processing technologies which typically rely heavily on the syntax of language and grammatical structure of the text. This document introduces our method to transform unconstrained clinical text found in electronic health information systems to a formal (computationally understandable) representation that is suitable for querying, integration, contextualization and reuse, and is resilient to the grammatical and syntactic irregularities of the clinical text. We present our design rationale, method, and results of evaluation in processing chief complaints and triage notes from 8 different emergency departments in Houston Texas. At the end, we will discuss significance of our contribution in enabling use of clinical text in a practical bio-surveillance setting.

La interoperabilidad entre sistemas de organización del conocimiento : Un nuevo desafío

La interoperabilidad entre distintos sistemas de organización del conocimiento (SOC) ha cobrado gran importancia en los últimos tiempos, con el propósito de facilitar la búsqueda simultánea en varias bases de datos o fusionar distintas bases de datos en una sola. Las nuevas normas para el diseño y desarrollo de SOC, la estadounidense Z39.19:2005 y la británica BS 8723-4:2007, incluyen recomendaciones detalladas para la interoperabilidad. También se encuentra en preparación una nueva norma ISO 25964-1 sobre tesauros e interoperabilidad que se agregará a las anteriores. La tecnología disponible proporciona herramientas para este fin, como son los formatos y requisitos funcionales de autoridades y las herramientas de la Web Semántica RDF/OWL, SKOS Core y XML. Actualmente es difícil diseñar y desarrollar nuevos SOC debido a los problemas económicos, de modo que la interoperabilidad hace posible aprovechar los SOC existentes. En este trabajo se revisan los conceptos, modelos y métodos recomendados por las normas, así como numerosas experiencias de interoperabilidad entre SOC que han sido documentadas.

La interoperabilidad entre sistemas de organización del conocimiento : Un nuevo desafío

La interoperabilidad entre distintos sistemas de organización del conocimiento (SOC) ha cobrado gran importancia en los últimos tiempos, con el propósito de facilitar la búsqueda simultánea en varias bases de datos o fusionar distintas bases de datos en una sola. Las nuevas normas para el diseño y desarrollo de SOC, la estadounidense Z39.19:2005 y la británica BS 8723-4:2007, incluyen recomendaciones detalladas para la interoperabilidad. También se encuentra en preparación una nueva norma ISO 25964-1 sobre tesauros e interoperabilidad que se agregará a las anteriores. La tecnología disponible proporciona herramientas para este fin, como son los formatos y requisitos funcionales de autoridades y las herramientas de la Web Semántica RDF/OWL, SKOS Core y XML. Actualmente es difícil diseñar y desarrollar nuevos SOC debido a los problemas económicos, de modo que la interoperabilidad hace posible aprovechar los SOC existentes. En este trabajo se revisan los conceptos, modelos y métodos recomendados por las normas, así como numerosas experiencias de interoperabilidad entre SOC que han sido documentadas.

La interoperabilidad entre sistemas de organización del conocimiento : Un nuevo desafío

La interoperabilidad entre distintos sistemas de organización del conocimiento (SOC) ha cobrado gran importancia en los últimos tiempos, con el propósito de facilitar la búsqueda simultánea en varias bases de datos o fusionar distintas bases de datos en una sola. Las nuevas normas para el diseño y desarrollo de SOC, la estadounidense Z39.19:2005 y la británica BS 8723-4:2007, incluyen recomendaciones detalladas para la interoperabilidad. También se encuentra en preparación una nueva norma ISO 25964-1 sobre tesauros e interoperabilidad que se agregará a las anteriores. La tecnología disponible proporciona herramientas para este fin, como son los formatos y requisitos funcionales de autoridades y las herramientas de la Web Semántica RDF/OWL, SKOS Core y XML. Actualmente es difícil diseñar y desarrollar nuevos SOC debido a los problemas económicos, de modo que la interoperabilidad hace posible aprovechar los SOC existentes. En este trabajo se revisan los conceptos, modelos y métodos recomendados por las normas, así como numerosas experiencias de interoperabilidad entre SOC que han sido documentadas.

Linked Data at the Spanish National Library and the application of IFLA RDFS models

The Spanish National Library (Biblioteca Nacional de España1. BNE) and the Ontology Engineering Group2 of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid are working on the joint project ?Preliminary Study of Linked Data?, whose aim is to enrich the Web of Data with the BNE authority and bibliographic records. To this end, they are transforming the BNE information to RDF following the Linked Data principles3 proposed by Tim Berners Lee.

A Semantic Scraping Model for Web Resources - Applying Linked Data to Web Page Screen Scraping

In spite of the increasing presence of Semantic Web Facilities, only a limited amount of the available resources in the Internet provide a semantic access. Recent initiatives such as the emerging Linked Data Web are providing semantic access to available data by porting existing resources to the semantic web using different technologies, such as database-semantic mapping and scraping. Nevertheless, existing scraping solutions are based on ad-hoc solutions complemented with graphical interfaces for speeding up the scraper development. This article proposes a generic framework for web scraping based on semantic technologies. This framework is structured in three levels: scraping services, semantic scraping model and syntactic scraping. The first level provides an interface to generic applications or intelligent agents for gathering information from the web at a high level. The second level defines a semantic RDF model of the scraping process, in order to provide a declarative approach to the scraping task. Finally, the third level provides an implementation of the RDF scraping model for specific technologies. The work has been validated in a scenario that illustrates its application to mashup technologies

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).