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).

A proposal for an interchange abstract syntax for (parallel) Prolog

We propose an abstract syntax for Prolog that will help the manipulation of programs at compile-time, as well as the exchange of sources and information among the tools designed for this manipulation. This includes analysers, partial evaluators, and program transformation tools. We have chosen to concentrate on the information exchange format, rather than on the syntax of programs, for which we assume a simplified format. Our purpose is to provide a low-level meeting point for the tools which will allow them to read the same programs and understand the information about them. This report describes our first design in an informal way. We expect this design to evolve and concretize, along with the future development of the tools, during the project.

A Keyword-driven approach for generating OWL DL conformance test data

The conformance of semantic technologies has to be systematically evaluated to measure and verify the real adherence of these technologies to the Semantic Web standards. Currente valuations of semantic technology conformance are not exhaustive enough and do not directly cover user requirements and use scenarios, which raises the need for a simple, extensible and parameterizable method to generate test data for such evaluations. To address this need, this paper presents a keyword-driven approach for generating ontology language conformance test data that can be used to evaluate semantic technologies, details the definition of a test suite for evaluating OWL DL conformance using this approach,and describes the use and extension of this test suite during the evaluation of some tools.

Federating queries in SPARQL 1.1: syntax, semantics and evaluation

Given the sustained growth that we are experiencing in the number of SPARQL endpoints available, the need to be able to send federated SPARQL queries across these has also grown. To address this use case, the W3C SPARQL working group is defining a federation extension for SPARQL 1.1 which allows for combining graph patterns that can be evaluated over several endpoints within a single query. In this paper, we describe the syntax of that extension and formalize its semantics. Additionally, we describe how a query evaluation system can be implemented for that federation extension, describing some static optimization techniques and reusing a query engine used for data-intensive science, so as to deal with large amounts of intermediate and final results. Finally we carry out a series of experiments that show that our optimizations speed up the federated query evaluation process.

Georges Stephenson [Material gráfico] Ingenieur du chemin de Liverpool, Manchester, père de Robert

Inscripción en al ángulo inferior derecho: "1er. Volume"

Representation of sound localization cues in the auditory thalamus of the barn owl

Barn owls can localize a sound source using either the map of auditory space contained in the optic tectum or the auditory forebrain. The auditory thalamus, nucleus ovoidalis (N.Ov), is situated between these two auditory areas, and its inactivation precludes the use of the auditory forebrain for sound localization. We examined the sources of inputs to the N.Ov as well as their patterns of termination within the nucleus. We also examined the response of single neurons within the N.Ov to tonal stimuli and sound localization cues. Afferents to the N.Ov originated with a diffuse population of neurons located bilaterally within the lateral shell, core, and medial shell subdivisions of the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus. Additional afferent input originated from the ipsilateral ventral nucleus of the lateral lemniscus. No afferent input was provided to the N.Ov from the external nucleus of the inferior colliculus or the optic tectum. The N.Ov was tonotopically organized with high frequencies represented dorsally and low frequencies ventrally. Although neurons in the N.Ov responded to localization cues, there was no apparent topographic mapping of these cues within the nucleus, in contrast to the tectal pathway. However, nearly all possible types of binaural response to sound localization cues were represented. These findings suggest that in the thalamo-telencephalic auditory pathway, sound localization is subserved by a nontopographic representation of auditory space.

How the owl resolves auditory coding ambiguity

The barn owl (Tyto alba) uses interaural time difference (ITD) cues to localize sounds in the horizontal plane. Low-order binaural auditory neurons with sharp frequency tuning act as narrow-band coincidence detectors; such neurons respond equally well to sounds with a particular ITD and its phase equivalents and are said to be phase ambiguous. Higher-order neurons with broad frequency tuning are unambiguously selective for single ITDs in response to broad-band sounds and show little or no response to phase equivalents. Selectivity for single ITDs is thought to arise from the convergence of parallel, narrow-band frequency channels that originate in the cochlea. ITD tuning to variable bandwidth stimuli was measured in higher-order neurons of the owl’s inferior colliculus to examine the rules that govern the relationship between frequency channel convergence and the resolution of phase ambiguity. Ambiguity decreased as stimulus bandwidth increased, reaching a minimum at 2–3 kHz. Two independent mechanisms appear to contribute to the elimination of ambiguity: one suppressive and one facilitative. The integration of information carried by parallel, distributed processing channels is a common theme of sensory processing that spans both modality and species boundaries. The principles underlying the resolution of phase ambiguity and frequency channel convergence in the owl may have implications for other sensory systems, such as electrolocation in electric fish and the computation of binocular disparity in the avian and mammalian visual systems.

Syntax processing by auditory cortical neurons in the FM–FM area of the mustached bat Pteronotus parnellii

Syntax denotes a rule system that allows one to predict the sequencing of communication signals. Despite its significance for both human speech processing and animal acoustic communication, the representation of syntactic structure in the mammalian brain has not been studied electrophysiologically at the single-unit level. In the search for a neuronal correlate for syntax, we used playback of natural and temporally destructured complex species-specific communication calls—so-called composites—while recording extracellularly from neurons in a physiologically well defined area (the FM–FM area) of the mustached bat’s auditory cortex. Even though this area is known to be involved in the processing of target distance information for echolocation, we found that units in the FM–FM area were highly responsive to composites. The finding that neuronal responses were strongly affected by manipulation in the time domain of the natural composite structure lends support to the hypothesis that syntax processing in mammals occurs at least at the level of the nonprimary auditory cortex.

Cellular mechanisms for resolving phase ambiguity in the owl's inferior colliculus

Both mammals and birds use the interaural time difference (ITD) for localization of sound in the horizontal plane. They may localize either real or phantom sound sources, when the signal consists of a narrow frequency band. This ambiguity does not occur with broadband signals. A plot of impulse rates or amplitude of excitatory postsynaptic potentials against ITDs (ITD curve) consists of peaks and troughs. In the external nucleus (ICX) of the owl's inferior colliculus, ITD curves show multiple peaks when the signal is narrow-band, such as tones. Of these peaks, one occurs at ITDi, which is independent of frequency, and others at ITDi ± T, where T is the tonal period. The ITD curve of the same neuron shows a large peak (main peak) at ITDi and no or small peaks (side peaks) at ITDi ± T, when the signal is broadband. ITD curves for postsynaptic potentials indicate that ICX neurons integrate the results of binaural cross-correlation in different frequency bands. However, the difference between the main and side peaks is small. ICX neurons further enhance this difference in the process of converting membrane potentials to impulse rates. Inhibition also appears to augment the difference between the main and side peaks.

Extração de casos de teste utilizando Redes de Petri hierárquicas e validação de resultados utilizando OWL.

Este trabalho propõe dois métodos para teste de sistemas de software: o primeiro extrai ideias de teste de um modelo desenvolvido em rede de Petri hierárquica e o segundo valida os resultados após a realização dos testes utilizando um modelo em OWL-S. Estes processos aumentam a qualidade do sistema desenvolvido ao reduzir o risco de uma cobertura insuficiente ou teste incompleto de uma funcionalidade. A primeira técnica apresentada consiste de cinco etapas: i) avaliação do sistema e identificação dos módulos e entidades separáveis, ii) levantamento dos estados e transições, iii) modelagem do sistema (bottom-up), iv) validação do modelo criado avaliando o fluxo de cada funcionalidade e v) extração dos casos de teste usando uma das três coberturas de teste apresentada. O segundo método deve ser aplicado após a realização dos testes e possui cinco passos: i) primeiro constrói-se um modelo em OWL (Web Ontology Language) do sistema contendo todas as informações significativas sobre as regras de negócio da aplicação, identificando as classes, propriedades e axiomas que o regem; ii) em seguida o status inicial antes da execução é representado no modelo através da inserção das instâncias (indivíduos) presentes; iii) após a execução dos casos de testes, a situação do modelo deve ser atualizada inserindo (sem apagar as instâncias já existentes) as instâncias que representam a nova situação da aplicação; iv) próximo passo consiste em utilizar um reasoner para fazer as inferências do modelo OWL verificando se o modelo mantém a consistência, ou seja, se não existem erros na aplicação; v) finalmente, as instâncias do status inicial são comparadas com as instâncias do status final, verificando se os elementos foram alterados, criados ou apagados corretamente. O processo proposto é indicado principalmente para testes funcionais de caixa-preta, mas pode ser facilmente adaptado para testes em caixa branca. Obtiveram-se casos de testes semelhantes aos que seriam obtidos em uma análise manual mantendo a mesma cobertura do sistema. A validação provou-se condizente com os resultados esperados, bem como o modelo ontológico mostrouse bem fácil e intuitivo para aplicar manutenções.

From constituents to syntax-oriented dependencies

This paper describes the automatic process of building a dependency annotated corpus based on Ancora constituent structures. The Ancora corpus already has a dependency structure information layer, but the new annotated data applies a purely syntactic orientation and offers in this way a new resource to the linguistic research community. The paper details the process of reannotating the corpus, the linguistic criteria used and the obtained results.

Manchester, Chetham's Library MS 8009 (Mun. A.6.31): A Codicological Description

This article presents a complete codicological description of Manchester, Chetham's Library, MS 8009 (Mun.A.6.31), a late fifteenth-century production that contains a combination of secular and religious texts. The manuscript's significance for both the literary and textual scholar was recognized by Derek Pearsall when he suggested its suitability for a facsimile edition. The restrictions imposed by the Governors of the Library for reproduction under the present conditions, however, suggest that Pearsall's recommendation may have to wait for some time. The purpose of this paper is to fill that void by correcting some inaccuracies in previous descriptions and completing them with supporting visual evidence.

Salem, Marblehead, Beverly and Manchester harbors, Massachusetts, 1806 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Chart of the harbours of Salem, Marblehead, Beverly, and Manchester : from a survey taken in the years 1804, 5 & 6, by Nathl. Bowditch, AM. AAS. ; assisted by Geo. Burchmore & Wm. Ropes, 3d. ; Hooker & Fairman, sc. Scale [ca. 1:20,500]. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, or other information associated with the principal map. This nautical chart shows coastal features such as lighthouses, rocks, shoals, channels, points, coves, harbors, anchor points, islands, and more. Depths are shown by soundings and shading. Land features include settlements, selected buildings and roads, and more. Relief is shown pictorially. This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps of Massachusetts from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of regions, originators, ground condition dates (1755-1922), scales, and purposes. The digitized selection includes maps of: the state, Massachusetts counties, town surveys, coastal features, real property, parks, cemeteries, railroads, roads, public works projects, etc.