Towards model driven software development for Arduino platforms: a DSL and automatic code generation

La tesi ha lo scopo di esplorare la produzione di sistemi software per Embedded Systems mediante l'utilizzo di tecniche relative al mondo del Model Driven Software Development. La fase più importante dello sviluppo sarà la definizione di un Meta-Modello che caratterizza i concetti fondamentali relativi agli embedded systems. Tale modello cercherà di astrarre dalla particolare piattaforma utilizzata ed individuare quali astrazioni caratterizzano il mondo degli embedded systems in generale. Tale meta-modello sarà quindi di tipo platform-independent. Per la generazione automatica di codice è stata adottata una piattaforma di riferimento, cioè Arduino. Arduino è un sistema embedded che si sta sempre più affermando perché coniuga un buon livello di performance ed un prezzo relativamente basso. Tale piattaforma permette lo sviluppo di sistemi special purpose che utilizzano sensori ed attuatori di vario genere, facilmente connessi ai pin messi a disposizione. Il meta-modello definito è un'istanza del meta-metamodello MOF, definito formalmente dall'organizzazione OMG. Questo permette allo sviluppatore di pensare ad un sistema sotto forma di modello, istanza del meta-modello definito. Un meta-modello può essere considerato anche come la sintassi astratta di un linguaggio, quindi può essere definito da un insieme di regole EBNF. La tecnologia utilizzata per la definizione del meta-modello è stata Xtext: un framework che permette la scrittura di regole EBNF e che genera automaticamente il modello Ecore associato al meta-modello definito. Ecore è l'implementazione di EMOF in ambiente Eclipse. Xtext genera inoltre dei plugin che permettono di avere un editor guidato dalla sintassi, definita nel meta-modello. La generazione automatica di codice è stata realizzata usando il linguaggio Xtend2. Tale linguaggio permette di esplorare l'Abstract Syntax Tree generato dalla traduzione del modello in Ecore e di generare tutti i file di codice necessari. Il codice generato fornisce praticamente tutta la schematic part dell'applicazione, mentre lascia all'application designer lo sviluppo della business logic. Dopo la definizione del meta-modello di un sistema embedded, il livello di astrazione è stato spostato più in alto, andando verso la definizione della parte di meta-modello relativa all'interazione di un sistema embedded con altri sistemi. Ci si è quindi spostati verso un ottica di Sistema, inteso come insieme di sistemi concentrati che interagiscono. Tale difinizione viene fatta dal punto di vista del sistema concentrato di cui si sta definendo il modello. Nella tesi viene inoltre introdotto un caso di studio che, anche se abbastanza semplice, fornisce un esempio ed un tutorial allo sviluppo di applicazioni mediante l'uso del meta-modello. Ci permette inoltre di notare come il compito dell'application designer diventi piuttosto semplice ed immediato, sempre se basato su una buona analisi del problema. I risultati ottenuti sono stati di buona qualità ed il meta-modello viene tradotto in codice che funziona correttamente.

Query rewriting in information retrieval: automatic context extraction from local user documents to improve query results

The central objective of research in Information Retrieval (IR) is to discover new techniques to retrieve relevant information in order to satisfy an Information Need. The Information Need is satisfied when relevant information can be provided to the user. In IR, relevance is a fundamental concept which has changed over time, from popular to personal, i.e., what was considered relevant before was information for the whole population, but what is considered relevant now is specific information for each user. Hence, there is a need to connect the behavior of the system to the condition of a particular person and his social context; thereby an interdisciplinary sector called Human-Centered Computing was born. For the modern search engine, the information extracted for the individual user is crucial. According to the Personalized Search (PS), two different techniques are necessary to personalize a search: contextualization (interconnected conditions that occur in an activity), and individualization (characteristics that distinguish an individual). This movement of focus to the individual's need undermines the rigid linearity of the classical model overtaken the ``berry picking'' model which explains that the terms change thanks to the informational feedback received from the search activity introducing the concept of evolution of search terms. The development of Information Foraging theory, which observed the correlations between animal foraging and human information foraging, also contributed to this transformation through attempts to optimize the cost-benefit ratio. This thesis arose from the need to satisfy human individuality when searching for information, and it develops a synergistic collaboration between the frontiers of technological innovation and the recent advances in IR. The search method developed exploits what is relevant for the user by changing radically the way in which an Information Need is expressed, because now it is expressed through the generation of the query and its own context. As a matter of fact the method was born under the pretense to improve the quality of search by rewriting the query based on the contexts automatically generated from a local knowledge base. Furthermore, the idea of optimizing each IR system has led to develop it as a middleware of interaction between the user and the IR system. Thereby the system has just two possible actions: rewriting the query, and reordering the result. Equivalent actions to the approach was described from the PS that generally exploits information derived from analysis of user behavior, while the proposed approach exploits knowledge provided by the user. The thesis went further to generate a novel method for an assessment procedure, according to the "Cranfield paradigm", in order to evaluate this type of IR systems. The results achieved are interesting considering both the effectiveness achieved and the innovative approach undertaken together with the several applications inspired using a local knowledge base.

Optical Design for Automatic Identification and Portable Systems

This thesis proposes design methods and test tools, for optical systems, which may be used in an industrial environment, where not only precision and reliability but also ease of use is important. The approach to the problem has been conceived to be as general as possible, although in the present work, the design of a portable device for automatic identification applications has been studied, because this doctorate has been funded by Datalogic Scanning Group s.r.l., a world-class producer of barcode readers. The main functional components of the complete device are: electro-optical imaging, illumination and pattern generator systems. For what concerns the electro-optical imaging system, a characterization tool and an analysis one has been developed to check if the desired performance of the system has been achieved. Moreover, two design tools for optimizing the imaging system have been implemented. The first optimizes just the core of the system, the optical part, improving its performance ignoring all other contributions and generating a good starting point for the optimization of the whole complex system. The second tool optimizes the system taking into account its behavior with a model as near as possible to reality including optics, electronics and detection. For what concerns the illumination and the pattern generator systems, two tools have been implemented. The first allows the design of free-form lenses described by an arbitrary analytical function exited by an incoherent source and is able to provide custom illumination conditions for all kind of applications. The second tool consists of a new method to design Diffractive Optical Elements excited by a coherent source for large pattern angles using the Iterative Fourier Transform Algorithm. Validation of the design tools has been obtained, whenever possible, comparing the performance of the designed systems with those of fabricated prototypes. In other cases simulations have been used.

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).

Automatic exploitation of non-determinate independent and-parallelism in the basic andorra model

Andorra-I is the first implementation of a language based on the Andorra Principie, which states that determinate goals can (and shonld) be run before other goals, and even in a parallel fashion. This principie has materialized in a framework called the Basic Andorra model, which allows or-parallelism as well as (dependent) and-parallelism for determinate goals. In this report we show that it is possible to further extend this model in order to allow general independent and-parallelism for nondeterminate goals, withont greatly modifying the underlying implementation machinery. A simple an easy way to realize such an extensión is to make each (nondeterminate) independent goal determinate, by using a special "bagof" constract. We also show that this can be achieved antomatically by compile-time translation from original Prolog programs. A transformation that fulfüls this objective and which can be easily antomated is presented in this report.

Model-to-Code transformation from product-line architecture models to aspectJ

Software Product Line Engineering has significant advantages in family-based software development. The common and variable structure for all products of a family is defined through a Product-Line Architecture (PLA) that consists of a common set of reusable components and connectors which can be configured to build the different products. The design of PLA requires solutions for capturing such configuration (variability). The Flexible-PLA Model is a solution that supports the specification of external variability of the PLA configuration, as well as internal variability of components. However, a complete support for product-line development requires translating architecture specifications into code. This complex task needs automation to avoid human error. Since Model-Driven Development allows automatic code generation from models, this paper presents a solution to automatically generate AspectJ code from Flexible-PLA models previously configured to derive specific products. This solution is supported by a modeling framework and validated in a software factory.

A Knowledge Model for Automatic Configuration of Traffic Messages

This paper describes a knowledge model for a configuration problem in the do-main of traffic control. The goal of this model is to help traffic engineers in the dynamic selection of a set of messages to be presented to drivers on variable message signals. This selection is done in a real-time context using data recorded by traffic detectors on motorways. The system follows an advanced knowledge-based solution that implements two abstract problem solving methods according to a model-based approach recently proposed in the knowledge engineering field. Finally, the paper presents a discussion about the advantages and drawbacks found for this problem as a consequence of the applied knowledge modeling ap-proach.

Cost estimates of automatic crash protection in 1987 model year passenger cars. Volume I. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Washington, D.C.

Cost estimates of automatic crash protection in 1987 model year passenger cars. Volume II. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Washington, D.C.

Cost estimates of automatic crash protection in 1987 model year passenger cars. Volume IV. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Washington, D.C.

Evaluation of the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems in 1980 and 1981 model vehicles. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Driver and Pedestrian Research, Washington, D.C.

Cost estimates of automatic crash protection in 1987 model year passenger cars. Volume III. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Washington, D.C.

Character recognition systems using Fourier transformation in incoherent light

Many attempts have been made to overcome problems involved in character recognition which have resulted in the manufacture of character reading machines. An investigation into a new approach to character recognition is described. Features for recognition are Fourier coefficients. These are generated optically by convolving characters with periodic gratings. The development of hardware to enable automatic measurement of contrast and position of periodic shadows produced by the convolution is described. Fourier coefficients of character sets were measured, many of which are tabulated. Their analysis revealed that a few low frequency sampling points could be selected to recognise sets of numerals. Limited treatment is given to show the effect of type face variations on the values of coefficients which culminated in the location of six sampling frequencies used as features to recognise numerals in two type fonts. Finally, the construction of two character recognition machines is compared and contrasted. The first is a pilot plant based on a test bed optical Fourier analyser, while the second is a more streamlined machine d(3signed for high speed reading. Reasons to indicate that the latter machine would be the most suitable to adapt for industrial and commercial applications are discussed.

The Rg1 allele as a valuable tool for genetic transformation of the tomato 'Micro-Tom' model system

Background: The cultivar Micro-Tom (MT) is regarded as a model system for tomato genetics due to its short life cycle and miniature size. However, efforts to improve tomato genetic transformation have led to protocols dependent on the costly hormone zeatin, combined with an excessive number of steps. Results: Here we report the development of a MT near-isogenic genotype harboring the allele Rg1 (MT-Rg1), which greatly improves tomato in vitro regeneration. Regeneration was further improved in MT by including a two-day incubation of cotyledonary explants onto medium containing 0.4 mu M 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) before cytokinin treatment. Both strategies allowed the use of 5 mu M 6-benzylaminopurine (BAP), a cytokinin 100 times less expensive than zeatin. The use of MT-Rg1 and NAA pre-incubation, followed by BAP regeneration, resulted in high transformation frequencies (near 40%), in a shorter protocol with fewer steps, spanning approximately 40 days from Agrobacterium infection to transgenic plant acclimatization. Conclusions: The genetic resource and the protocol presented here represent invaluable tools for routine gene expression manipulation and high throughput functional genomics by insertional mutagenesis in tomato.

PERFORMANCE OF THE MODEL CALLED ACQUANETXL IN THE ALLOCATION OF WATER IN COMPLEX WATER RESOURCE SYSTEMS

This article presents a tool for the allocation analysis of complex systems of water resources, called AcquaNetXL, developed in the form of spreadsheet in which a model of linear optimization and another nonlinear were incorporated. The AcquaNetXL keeps the concepts and attributes of a decision support system. In other words, it straightens out the communication between the user and the computer, facilitates the understanding and the formulation of the problem, the interpretation of the results and it also gives a support in the process of decision making, turning it into a clear and organized process. The performance of the algorithms used for solving the problems of water allocation was satisfactory especially for the linear model.