Predicados, propiedades y condiciones de aplicación

En el presente artículo examinamos la relación entre predicados y propiedades. Por un lado, procuramos mostrar que la concepción de acuerdo con la cual la función primaria de predicados es la de denotar propiedades es insatisfactoria. Por otro lado, distinguimos entre el criterio de uso de predicados y su condición de aplicación, i. e. la condición que un objeto debe satisfacer para que sea correcto aplicar el predicado a él. Defendemos que propiedades se relacionan con predicados en la medida en que la condición de aplicación de un predicado es la instanciación de una propiedad

Temporary jobs and globalization

Deregulation of the use of temporary workers in 2004 (the Worker Dispatching Act of 2004) has been regarded as an important reason for the recent rise of temporary workers in Japan. However, the shift from permanent to temporary workers began long before. This paper empirically explores links between the shift from permanent to temporary workers in the Japanese manufacturing sector and economic globalization, using industry-level data. We find that outsourcing is positively correlated with the replacement of permanent workers with temporary workers in domestic production. In addition, we find that industries losing world share of value added tend to decrease the employment of permanent workers. Industries with higher exports or imports are aggressive in using temporary workers, which suggests the role of temporary workers as an employment buffer.

Alarm tree analysis using statistical techniques

This work presents a systematic method for the generation and treatment of the alarms' graphs, being its final object to find the Alarm Root Cause of the Massive Alarms that are produced in the dispatching centers. Although many works about this matter have been already developed, the problem about the alarm management in the industry is still completely unsolved. In this paper, a simple statistic analysis of the historical data base is conducted. The results obtained by the acquisition alarm systems, are used to generate a directed graph from which the more significant alarms are extracted, previously analyzing any possible case in which a great quantity of alarms are produced.

Relational and Allegorical Semantics for Constraint Logic Programming

El cálculo de relaciones binarias fue creado por De Morgan en 1860 para ser posteriormente desarrollado en gran medida por Peirce y Schröder. Tarski, Givant, Freyd y Scedrov demostraron que las álgebras relacionales son capaces de formalizar la lógica de primer orden, la lógica de orden superior así como la teoría de conjuntos. A partir de los resultados matemáticos de Tarski y Freyd, esta tesis desarrolla semánticas denotacionales y operacionales para la programación lógica con restricciones usando el álgebra relacional como base. La idea principal es la utilización del concepto de semántica ejecutable, semánticas cuya característica principal es el que la ejecución es posible utilizando el razonamiento estándar del universo semántico, este caso, razonamiento ecuacional. En el caso de este trabajo, se muestra que las álgebras relacionales distributivas con un operador de punto fijo capturan toda la teoría y metateoría estándar de la programación lógica con restricciones incluyendo los árboles utilizados en la búsqueda de demostraciones. La mayor parte de técnicas de optimización de programas, evaluación parcial e interpretación abstracta pueden ser llevadas a cabo utilizando las semánticas aquí presentadas. La demostración de la corrección de la implementación resulta extremadamente sencilla. En la primera parte de la tesis, un programa lógico con restricciones es traducido a un conjunto de términos relacionales. La interpretación estándar en la teoría de conjuntos de dichas relaciones coincide con la semántica estándar para CLP. Las consultas contra el programa traducido son llevadas a cabo mediante la reescritura de relaciones. Para concluir la primera parte, se demuestra la corrección y equivalencia operacional de esta nueva semántica, así como se define un algoritmo de unificación mediante la reescritura de relaciones. La segunda parte de la tesis desarrolla una semántica para la programación lógica con restricciones usando la teoría de alegorías—versión categórica del álgebra de relaciones—de Freyd. Para ello, se definen dos nuevos conceptos de Categoría Regular de Lawvere y _-Alegoría, en las cuales es posible interpretar un programa lógico. La ventaja fundamental que el enfoque categórico aporta es la definición de una máquina categórica que mejora e sistema de reescritura presentado en la primera parte. Gracias al uso de relaciones tabulares, la máquina modela la ejecución eficiente sin salir de un marco estrictamente formal. Utilizando la reescritura de diagramas, se define un algoritmo para el cálculo de pullbacks en Categorías Regulares de Lawvere. Los dominios de las tabulaciones aportan información sobre la utilización de memoria y variable libres, mientras que el estado compartido queda capturado por los diagramas. La especificación de la máquina induce la derivación formal de un juego de instrucciones eficiente. El marco categórico aporta otras importantes ventajas, como la posibilidad de incorporar tipos de datos algebraicos, funciones y otras extensiones a Prolog, a la vez que se conserva el carácter 100% declarativo de nuestra semántica. ABSTRACT The calculus of binary relations was introduced by De Morgan in 1860, to be greatly developed by Peirce and Schröder, as well as many others in the twentieth century. Using different formulations of relational structures, Tarski, Givant, Freyd, and Scedrov have shown how relation algebras can provide a variable-free way of formalizing first order logic, higher order logic and set theory, among other formal systems. Building on those mathematical results, we develop denotational and operational semantics for Constraint Logic Programming using relation algebra. The idea of executable semantics plays a fundamental role in this work, both as a philosophical and technical foundation. We call a semantics executable when program execution can be carried out using the regular theory and tools that define the semantic universe. Throughout this work, the use of pure algebraic reasoning is the basis of denotational and operational results, eliminating all the classical non-equational meta-theory associated to traditional semantics for Logic Programming. All algebraic reasoning, including execution, is performed in an algebraic way, to the point we could state that the denotational semantics of a CLP program is directly executable. Techniques like optimization, partial evaluation and abstract interpretation find a natural place in our algebraic models. Other properties, like correctness of the implementation or program transformation are easy to check, as they are carried out using instances of the general equational theory. In the first part of the work, we translate Constraint Logic Programs to binary relations in a modified version of the distributive relation algebras used by Tarski. Execution is carried out by a rewriting system. We prove adequacy and operational equivalence of the semantics. In the second part of the work, the relation algebraic approach is improved by using allegory theory, a categorical version of the algebra of relations developed by Freyd and Scedrov. The use of allegories lifts the semantics to typed relations, which capture the number of logical variables used by a predicate or program state in a declarative way. A logic program is interpreted in a _-allegory, which is in turn generated from a new notion of Regular Lawvere Category. As in the untyped case, program translation coincides with program interpretation. Thus, we develop a categorical machine directly from the semantics. The machine is based on relation composition, with a pullback calculation algorithm at its core. The algorithm is defined with the help of a notion of diagram rewriting. In this operational interpretation, types represent information about memory allocation and the execution mechanism is more efficient, thanks to the faithful representation of shared state by categorical projections. We finish the work by illustrating how the categorical semantics allows the incorporation into Prolog of constructs typical of Functional Programming, like abstract data types, and strict and lazy functions.

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 Predicate, Object> 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 Predicate, Object> 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 Predicate, Object> 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).

Abstract multiple specialization and its application to program parallelization.

Program specialization optimizes programs for known valúes of the input. It is often the case that the set of possible input valúes is unknown, or this set is infinite. However, a form of specialization can still be performed in such cases by means of abstract interpretation, specialization then being with respect to abstract valúes (substitutions), rather than concrete ones. We study the múltiple specialization of logic programs based on abstract interpretation. This involves in principie, and based on information from global analysis, generating several versions of a program predicate for different uses of such predicate, optimizing these versions, and, finally, producing a new, "multiply specialized" program. While múltiple specialization has received theoretical attention, little previous evidence exists on its practicality. In this paper we report on the incorporation of múltiple specialization in a parallelizing compiler and quantify its effects. A novel approach to the design and implementation of the specialization system is proposed. The resulting implementation techniques result in identical specializations to those of the best previously proposed techniques but require little or no modification of some existing abstract interpreters. Our results show that, using the proposed techniques, the resulting "abstract múltiple specialization" is indeed a relevant technique in practice. In particular, in the parallelizing compiler application, a good number of run-time tests are eliminated and invariants extracted automatically from loops, resulting generally in lower overheads and in several cases in increased speedups.

Contribución al estudio de dos conceptos básicos de la lógica fuzzy

La tesis doctoral CONTRIBUCIÓN AL ESTUDIO DE DOS CONCEPTOS BÁSICOS DE LA LÓGICA FUZZY constituye un conjunto de nuevas aportaciones al análisis de dos elementos básicos de la lógica fuzzy: los mecanismos de inferencia y la representación de predicados vagos. La memoria se encuentra dividida en dos partes que corresponden a los dos aspectos señalados. En la Parte I se estudia el concepto básico de «estado lógico borroso». Un estado lógico borroso es un punto fijo de la aplicación generada a partir de la regla de inferencia conocida como modus ponens generalizado. Además, un preorden borroso puede ser representado mediante los preórdenes elementales generados por el conjunto de sus estados lógicos borrosos. El Capítulo 1 está dedicado a caracterizar cuándo dos estados lógicos dan lugar al mismo preorden elemental, obteniéndose también un representante de la clase de todos los estados lógicos que generan el mismo preorden elemental. El Capítulo finaliza con la caracterización del conjunto de estados lógicos borrosos de un preorden elemental. En el Capítulo 2 se obtiene un subconjunto borroso trapezoidal como una clase de una relación de indistinguibilidad. Finalmente, el Capítulo 3 se dedica a estudiar dos tipos de estados lógicos clásicos: los irreducibles y los minimales. En el Capítulo 4, que inicia la Parte II de la memoria, se aborda el problema de obtener la función de compatibilidad de un predicado vago. Se propone un método, basado en el conocimiento del uso del predicado mediante un conjunto de reglas y de ciertos elementos distinguidos, que permite obtener una expresión general de la función de pertenencia generalizada de un subconjunto borroso que realice la función de extensión del predicado borroso. Dicho método permite, en ciertos casos, definir un conjunto de conectivas multivaluadas asociadas al predicado. En el último capítulo se estudia la representación de antónimos y sinónimos en lógica fuzzy a través de auto-morfismos. Se caracterizan los automorfismos sobre el intervalo unidad cuando sobre él se consideran dos operaciones: una t-norma y una t-conorma ambas arquimedianas. The PhD Thesis CONTRIBUCIÓN AL ESTUDIO DE DOS CONCEPTOS BÁSICOS DE LA LÓGICA FUZZY is a contribution to two basic concepts of the Fuzzy Logic. It is divided in two parts, the first is devoted to a mechanism of inference in Fuzzy Logic, and the second to the representation of vague predicates. «Fuzzy Logic State» is the basic concept in Part I. A Fuzzy Logic State is a fixed-point for the mapping giving the Generalized Modus Ponens Rule of inference. Moreover, a fuzzy preordering can be represented by the elementary preorderings generated by its Fuzzy Logic States. Chapter 1 contemplates the identity of elementary preorderings and the selection of representatives for the classes modulo this identity. This chapter finishes with the characterization of the set of Fuzzy Logic States of an elementary preordering. In Chapter 2 a Trapezoidal Fuzzy Set as a class of a relation of Indistinguishability is obtained. Finally, Chapter 3 is devoted to study two types of Classical Logic States: irreducible and minimal. Part II begins with Chapter 4 dealing with the problem of obtaining a Compa¬tibility Function for a vague predicate. When the use of a predicate is known by means of a set of rules and some distinguished elements, a method to obtain the general expression of the Membership Function is presented. This method allows, in some cases, to reach a set of multivalued connectives associated to the predicate. Last Chapter is devoted to the representation of antonyms and synonyms in Fuzzy Logic. When the unit interval [0,1] is endowed with both an archimedean t-norm and a an archi-medean t-conorm, it is showed that the automorphisms' group is just reduced to the identity function.

A generic persistence model for CLP systems (and two useful implementations)

This paper describes a model of persistence in (C)LP languages and two different and practically very useful ways to implement this model in current systems. The fundamental idea is that persistence is a characteristic of certain dynamic predicates (Le., those which encapsulate state). The main effect of declaring a predicate persistent is that the dynamic changes made to such predicates persist from one execution to the next one. After proposing a syntax for declaring persistent predicates, a simple, file-based implementation of the concept is presented and some examples shown. An additional implementation is presented which stores persistent predicates in an external datábase. The abstraction of the concept of persistence from its implementation allows developing applications which can store their persistent predicates alternatively in files or databases with only a few simple changes to a declaration stating the location and modality used for persistent storage. The paper presents the model, the implementation approach in both the cases of using files and relational databases, a number of optimizations of the process (using information obtained from static global analysis and goal clustering), and performance results from an implementation of these ideas.

Multivariant non-failure analysis via standard abstract interpretation

Non-failure analysis aims at inferring that predicate calis in a program will never fail. This type of information has many applications in functional/logic programming. It is essential for determining lower bounds on the computational cost of calis, useful in the context of program parallelization, instrumental in partial evaluation and other program transformations, and has also been used in query optimization. In this paper, we re-cast the non-failure analysis proposed by Debray et al. as an abstract interpretation, which not only allows to investígate it from a standard and well understood theoretical framework, but has also several practical advantages. It allows us to incorpórate non-failure analysis into a standard, generic abstract interpretation engine. The analysis thus benefits from the fixpoint propagation algorithm, which leads to improved information propagation. Also, the analysis takes advantage of the multi-variance of the generic engine, so that it is now able to infer sepárate non-failure information for different cali patterns. Moreover, the implementation is simpler, and allows to perform non-failure and covering analyses alongside other analyses, such as those for modes and types, in the same framework. Finally, besides the precisión improvements and the additional simplicity, our implementation (in the Ciao/CiaoPP multiparadigm programming system) also shows better efRciency.

A generic persistence model for CLP systems

This paper describes a model of persistence in (C)LP languages and two different and practically very useful ways to implement this model in current systems. The fundamental idea is that persistence is a characteristic of certain dynamic predicates (i.e., those which encapsulate state). The main effect of declaring a predicate persistent is that the dynamic changes made to such predicates persist from one execution to the next one. After proposing a syntax for declaring persistent predicates, a simple, file-based implementation of the concept is presented and some examples shown. An additional implementation is presented which stores persistent predicates in an external database. The abstraction of the concept of persistence from its implementation allows developing applications which can store their persistent predicates alternatively in files or databases with only a few simple changes to a declaration stating the location and modality used for persistent storage. The paper presents the model, the implementation approach in both the cases of using files and relational databases, a number of optimizations of the process (using information obtained from static global analysis and goal clustering), and performance results from an implementation of these ideas.

Towards structured state threading in prolog

It is very often the case that programs require passing, maintaining, and updating some notion of state. Prolog programs often implement such stateful computations by carrying this state in predicate arguments (or, alternatively, in the internal datábase). This often causes code obfuscation, complicates code reuse, introduces dependencies on the data model, and is prone to incorrect propagation of the state information among predicate calis. To partly solve these problems, we introduce contexts as a consistent mechanism for specifying implicit arguments and its threading in clause goals. We propose a notation and an interpretation for contexts, ranging from single goals to complete programs, give an intuitive semantics, and describe a translation into standard Prolog. We also discuss a particular light-weight implementation in Ciao Prolog, and we show the usefulness of our proposals on a series of examples and applications, including code directiy using contexts, DCGs, extended DCGs, logical loops and other custom control structures.

The ciao prolog system

Ciao is a public domain, next generation multi-paradigm programming environment with a unique set of features: Ciao offers a complete Prolog system, supporting ISO-Prolog, but its novel modular design allows both restricting and extending the language. As a result, it allows working with fully declarative subsets of Prolog and also to extend these subsets (or ISO-Prolog) both syntactically and semantically. Most importantly, these restrictions and extensions can be activated separately on each program module so that several extensions can coexist in the same application for different modules. Ciao also supports (through such extensions) programming with functions, higher-order (with predicate abstractions), constraints, and objects, as well as feature terms (records), persistence, several control rules (breadth-first search, iterative deepening, ...), concurrency (threads/engines), a good base for distributed execution (agents), and parallel execution. Libraries also support WWW programming, sockets, external interfaces (C, Java, TclTk, relational databases, etc.), etc. Ciao offers support for programming in the large with a robust module/object system, module-based separate/incremental compilation (automatically -no need for makefiles), an assertion language for declaring (optional) program properties (including types and modes, but also determinacy, non-failure, cost, etc.), automatic static inference and static/dynamic checking of such assertions, etc. Ciao also offers support for programming in the small producing small executables (including only those builtins used by the program) and support for writing scripts in Prolog. The Ciao programming environment includes a classical top-level and a rich emacs interface with an embeddable source-level debugger and a number of execution visualization tools. The Ciao compiler (which can be run outside the top level shell) generates several forms of architecture-independent and stand-alone executables, which run with speed, efficiency and executable size which are very competive with other commercial and academic Prolog/CLP systems. Library modules can be compiled into compact bytecode or C source files, and linked statically, dynamically, or autoloaded. The novel modular design of Ciao enables, in addition to modular program development, effective global program analysis and static debugging and optimization via source to source program transformation. These tasks are performed by the Ciao preprocessor ( ciaopp, distributed separately). The Ciao programming environment also includes lpdoc, an automatic documentation generator for LP/CLP programs. It processes Prolog files adorned with (Ciao) assertions and machine-readable comments and generates manuals in many formats including postscript, pdf, texinfo, info, HTML, man, etc. , as well as on-line help, ascii README files, entries for indices of manuals (info, WWW, ...), and maintains WWW distribution sites.

Quantity and degree assessment in an RDF.based semantic language

This paper introduces a semantic language developed with the objective to be used in a semantic analyzer based on linguistic and world knowledge. Linguistic knowledge is provided by a Combinatorial Dictionary and several sets of rules. Extra-linguistic information is stored in an Ontology. The meaning of the text is represented by means of a series of RDF-type triples of the form predicate (subject, object). Semantic analyzer is one of the options of the multifunctional ETAP-3 linguistic processor. The analyzer can be used for Information Extraction and Question Answering. We describe semantic representation of expressions that provide an assessment of the number of objects involved and/or give a quantitative evaluation of different types of attributes. We focus on the following aspects: 1) parametric and non-parametric attributes; 2) gradable and non-gradable attributes; 3) ontological representation of different classes of attributes; 4) absolute and relative quantitative assessment; 5) punctual and interval quantitative assessment; 6) intervals with precise and fuzzy boundaries

Max Bill: variaciones sobre la búsqueda de la belleza

Max Bill es un artista lógico. Quince variaciones sobre el mismo tema 1938, podría ser el epítome de la lógica de Bill: la obra como resultado de la aplicación de leyes distintas sobre una estructura de orden. La gran diversidad formal de la obra de Max Bill –entre sus diseños de objetos, su tipografía, su pintura, su escultura o su arquitectura no parece haber líneas formales evidentes- se debe a que, para él, cada tarea es diferente y depende de medios y leyes propios. Una diversidad que podría ser erróneamente interpretada como un tipo de eclecticismo. Su conferencia en el Werkbund suizo de 1948 “belleza de la función, belleza como función”, se aleja del discurso funcionalista al proponer la belleza como una igual al resto de funciones. Cada obra ha de satisfacer la finalidad para la que ha sido construida y cumplir todas las funciones que en ella intervienen pero, además, ha de ser bella. La particularidad de Bill estriba en que, reconociéndose a sí mismo como un artista lógico, incluye la belleza como una más de las funciones a cumplir por cualquier objeto. Su famoso aforismo en relación a la configuración del entorno, desde la cuchara a la ciudad, incluiría la arquitectura en el ámbito de los objetos que han de cumplir esta nueva función. La búsqueda de la belleza será una constante en su obra. No una belleza generalizable y determinada a priori, sino una belleza entendida como predicado singular, individualizada para cada tarea. De este modo, podemos analizar, alternativamente, la belleza lógica de sus construcciones geométricas y la belleza simbólica de sus monumentos; la belleza del espacio sin fin en las superficies de una sola cara y la belleza prefabricada en sus más austeras realizaciones; la belleza elemental de sus esculturas y la belleza corriente con que sus arquitecturas se integran en la ciudad. Podemos plantearnos la posibilidad de una belleza de la estructura y entender simultáneamente la belleza cruda de su obra maestra, los edificios de la Escuela de Ulm. La búsqueda de la belleza nos ayudará a entender que, en la obra de Bill, la razón intuitiva -como modo de conocimiento- toma mayor importancia de la que parece. La forma como suma de todas las funciones en unidad armónica, será el resultado de un adecuado equilibrio entre razón lógica y razón intuitiva. ABSTRACT Max Bill is a logical artist. We could consider “Fitfteen variations on the same theme”, 1938, as the Bill’s logic epitome: the work as a result of the application of different tectonic laws on the order structure. The variety of the form in Bill’s work –his designed objects, his typography, his painting, his sculpture, or his architecture do not seem to have, between them, a direct line connecting the form- is due to the fact that, for him, each task is different and it depends on the own means and tectonic laws. A kind of diversity that could be misinterpreted like certain type of eclecticism. His lecture at the Suisse Werkbund (1948) “beauty from function and as function” is far from the functionalist speech, when proposing beauty as an equal to the rest of functions. In his own words, each work has to satisfy the purpose it was built for and fulfill all functions, and furthermore it has to be beautiful. Seeing himself as a logical artist, Bill however introduces beauty as one more of the functions that any object has to fulfill. His famous aphorism related to the environment management, from the spoon to the city, would include architecture as one more of the objects that have to satisfy this new function. The pursuit of beauty is a constant in his work. It won’t be a general beauty determined in advance, but a singular predicate, individualized for each task. That way, we can analyze, alternatively, the logical beauty of his geometric constructions and the symbolical beauty of his monuments; the beauty of the endless space in the single-sided surfaces and the prefabricated beauty in his most stricts constructions; the elemental beauty of his sculptures and the ordinary beauty with which some of his architectures are integrated in the city. We can also try the possibility of a beauty from the structure and understand, at the same time, the raw beauty of his architectural masterpiece, the buildings of the Ulm School of Design. The pursuit of beauty in Bill’s work will help us to understand that intuitive reason, as a way of knowledge, takes more importance than it seems. Form, as the harmonious expression of the sum of all functions, will be the result of an appropriate balance between logical and intuitive reason.

Supporting pruning in tabled LP

This paper analyzes issues which appear when supporting pruning operators in tabled LP. A version of the once/1 control predicate tailored for tabled predicates is presented, and an implementation analyzed and evaluated. Using once/1 with answer-on-demand strategies makes it possible to avoid computing unneeded solutions for problems which can benefit from tabled LP but in which only a single solution is needed, such as model checking and planning. The proposed version of once/1 is also directly applicable to the efficient implementation of other optimizations, such as early completion, cut-fail loops (to, e.g., prune at the top level), if-then-else, and constraint-based branch-and-bound optimization. Although once/1 still presents open issues such as dependencies of tabled solutions on program history, our experimental evaluation confirms that it provides an arbitrarily large efficiency improvement in several application areas.