High prevalence of OXA-143 and alteration of outer membrane proteins in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. isolates in Brazil

Carbapenem resistance amongst Acinetobacter spp. has been increasing in the last decade. This study evaluated the outer membrane protein (OMP) profile and production of carbapenemases in 50 carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. isolates from bloodstream infections. Isolates were identified by API20NE. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for carbapenems were determined by broth microdilution. Carbapenemases were studied by phenotypic tests, detection of their encoding gene by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, and imipenem hydrolysis. Nucleotide sequencing confirming the enzyme gene type was performed using MegaBACE 1000. The presence of OMPs was studied by sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and PCR. Molecular typing was performed using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). All isolates were resistant to carbapenems. Moreover, 98% of the isolates were positive for the gene encoding the enzyme OXA-51-like, 18% were positive for OXA-23-like (only one isolate did not show the presence of the insertion sequence ISAba1 adjacent to this gene) and 76% were positive for OXA-143 enzyme. Five isolates (10%) showed the presence of the IMP-1 gene. Imipenem hydrolysing activity was detected in only three strains containing carbapenemase genes, comprising two isolates containing the bla(IMP) gene and one containing the bla(OXA-51/OXA-23-like) gene. The OMP of 43 kDa was altered in 17 of 25 strains studied, and this alteration was associated with a high meropenem MIC (256 mu g/mL) in 5 of 7 strains without 43 kDa OMP. On the other hand, decreased OMP 33-36 kDa was found in five strains. The high prevalence of OXA-143 and alteration of OMPs might have been associated with a high level of carbapenem resistance. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

LALP: a language to program custom FPGA-based acceleration engines

Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) are becoming increasingly important in embedded and high-performance computing systems. They allow performance levels close to the ones obtained with Application-Specific Integrated Circuits, while still keeping design and implementation flexibility. However, to efficiently program FPGAs, one needs the expertise of hardware developers in order to master hardware description languages (HDLs) such as VHDL or Verilog. Attempts to furnish a high-level compilation flow (e.g., from C programs) still have to address open issues before broader efficient results can be obtained. Bearing in mind an FPGA available resources, it has been developed LALP (Language for Aggressive Loop Pipelining), a novel language to program FPGA-based accelerators, and its compilation framework, including mapping capabilities. The main ideas behind LALP are to provide a higher abstraction level than HDLs, to exploit the intrinsic parallelism of hardware resources, and to allow the programmer to control execution stages whenever the compiler techniques are unable to generate efficient implementations. Those features are particularly useful to implement loop pipelining, a well regarded technique used to accelerate computations in several application domains. This paper describes LALP, and shows how it can be used to achieve high-performance computing solutions.

Use of shared memory in the context of embedded multi-core processors: exploration of the technology and its limits

Modern embedded systems embrace many-core shared-memory designs. Due to constrained power and area budgets, most of them feature software-managed scratchpad memories instead of data caches to increase the data locality. It is therefore programmers’ responsibility to explicitly manage the memory transfers, and this make programming these platform cumbersome. Moreover, complex modern applications must be adequately parallelized before they can the parallel potential of the platform into actual performance. To support this, programming languages were proposed, which work at a high level of abstraction, and rely on a runtime whose cost hinders performance, especially in embedded systems, where resources and power budget are constrained. This dissertation explores the applicability of the shared-memory paradigm on modern many-core systems, focusing on the ease-of-programming. It focuses on OpenMP, the de-facto standard for shared memory programming. In a first part, the cost of algorithms for synchronization and data partitioning are analyzed, and they are adapted to modern embedded many-cores. Then, the original design of an OpenMP runtime library is presented, which supports complex forms of parallelism such as multi-level and irregular parallelism. In the second part of the thesis, the focus is on heterogeneous systems, where hardware accelerators are coupled to (many-)cores to implement key functional kernels with orders-of-magnitude of speedup and energy efficiency compared to the “pure software” version. However, three main issues rise, namely i) platform design complexity, ii) architectural scalability and iii) programmability. To tackle them, a template for a generic hardware processing unit (HWPU) is proposed, which share the memory banks with cores, and the template for a scalable architecture is shown, which integrates them through the shared-memory system. Then, a full software stack and toolchain are developed to support platform design and to let programmers exploiting the accelerators of the platform. The OpenMP frontend is extended to interact with it.

Learning Methods and Algorithms for Semantic Text Classification across Multiple Domains

Information is nowadays a key resource: machine learning and data mining techniques have been developed to extract high-level information from great amounts of data. As most data comes in form of unstructured text in natural languages, research on text mining is currently very active and dealing with practical problems. Among these, text categorization deals with the automatic organization of large quantities of documents in priorly defined taxonomies of topic categories, possibly arranged in large hierarchies. In commonly proposed machine learning approaches, classifiers are automatically trained from pre-labeled documents: they can perform very accurate classification, but often require a consistent training set and notable computational effort. Methods for cross-domain text categorization have been proposed, allowing to leverage a set of labeled documents of one domain to classify those of another one. Most methods use advanced statistical techniques, usually involving tuning of parameters. A first contribution presented here is a method based on nearest centroid classification, where profiles of categories are generated from the known domain and then iteratively adapted to the unknown one. Despite being conceptually simple and having easily tuned parameters, this method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy in most benchmark datasets with fast running times. A second, deeper contribution involves the design of a domain-independent model to distinguish the degree and type of relatedness between arbitrary documents and topics, inferred from the different types of semantic relationships between respective representative words, identified by specific search algorithms. The application of this model is tested on both flat and hierarchical text categorization, where it potentially allows the efficient addition of new categories during classification. Results show that classification accuracy still requires improvements, but models generated from one domain are shown to be effectively able to be reused in a different one.

Unmasking the contribution of low-level features to the guidance of attention

The role of low-level stimulus-driven control in the guidance of overt visual attention has been difficult to establish because low- and high-level visual content are spatially correlated within natural visual stimuli. Here we show that impairment of parietal cortical areas, either permanently by a lesion or reversibly by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), leads to fixation of locations with higher values of low-level features as compared to control subjects or in a no-rTMS condition. Moreover, this unmasking of stimulus-driven control crucially depends on the intrahemispheric balance between top-down and bottom-up cortical areas. This result suggests that although in normal behavior high-level features might exert a strong influence, low-level features do contribute to guide visual selection during the exploration of complex natural stimuli.

Composing New Abstractions From Object Fragments

As object-oriented languages are extended with novel modularization mechanisms, better underlying models are required to implement these high-level features. This paper describes CELL, a language model that builds on delegation-based chains of object fragments. Composition of groups of cells is used: 1) to represent objects, 2) to realize various forms of method lookup, and 3) to keep track of method references. A running prototype of CELL is provided and used to realize the basic kernel of a Smalltalk system. The paper shows, using several examples, how higher-level features such as traits can be supported by the lower-level model.

Transactional Memory in a Dynamic Language

Concurrency control is mostly based on locks and is therefore notoriously difficult to use. Even though some programming languages provide high-level constructs, these add complexity and potentially hard-to-detect bugs to the application. Transactional memory is an attractive mechanism that does not have the drawbacks of locks, however the underlying implementation is often difficult to integrate into an existing language. In this paper we show how we have introduced transactional semantics into Smalltalk by using the reflective facilities of the language. Our approach is based on method annotations, incremental parse tree transformations and an optimistic commit protocol. The implementation does not depend on modifications to the virtual machine and therefore can be changed at the language level. We report on a practical case study, benchmarks and further and on-going work.

High Incorrect Use of the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) in Original Articles in Three Cardiovascular Journals Evaluated for 2012.

RATIONALE In biomedical journals authors sometimes use the standard error of the mean (SEM) for data description, which has been called inappropriate or incorrect. OBJECTIVE To assess the frequency of incorrect use of SEM in articles in three selected cardiovascular journals. METHODS AND RESULTS All original journal articles published in 2012 in Cardiovascular Research, Circulation: Heart Failure and Circulation Research were assessed by two assessors for inappropriate use of SEM when providing descriptive information of empirical data. We also assessed whether the authors state in the methods section that the SEM will be used for data description. Of 441 articles included in this survey, 64% (282 articles) contained at least one instance of incorrect use of the SEM, with two journals having a prevalence above 70% and "Circulation: Heart Failure" having the lowest value (27%). In 81% of articles with incorrect use of SEM, the authors had explicitly stated that they use the SEM for data description and in 89% SEM bars were also used instead of 95% confidence intervals. Basic science studies had a 7.4-fold higher level of inappropriate SEM use (74%) than clinical studies (10%). LIMITATIONS The selection of the three cardiovascular journals was based on a subjective initial impression of observing inappropriate SEM use. The observed results are not representative for all cardiovascular journals. CONCLUSION In three selected cardiovascular journals we found a high level of inappropriate SEM use and explicit methods statements to use it for data description, especially in basic science studies. To improve on this situation, these and other journals should provide clear instructions to authors on how to report descriptive information of empirical data.

Imputation of sequence level genotypes in the Franches-Montagnes horse breed

BACKGROUND A cost-effective strategy to increase the density of available markers within a population is to sequence a small proportion of the population and impute whole-genome sequence data for the remaining population. Increased densities of typed markers are advantageous for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and genomic predictions. METHODS We obtained genotypes for 54 602 SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in 1077 Franches-Montagnes (FM) horses and Illumina paired-end whole-genome sequencing data for 30 FM horses and 14 Warmblood horses. After variant calling, the sequence-derived SNP genotypes (~13 million SNPs) were used for genotype imputation with the software programs Beagle, Impute2 and FImpute. RESULTS The mean imputation accuracy of FM horses using Impute2 was 92.0%. Imputation accuracy using Beagle and FImpute was 74.3% and 77.2%, respectively. In addition, for Impute2 we determined the imputation accuracy of all individual horses in the validation population, which ranged from 85.7% to 99.8%. The subsequent inclusion of Warmblood sequence data further increased the correlation between true and imputed genotypes for most horses, especially for horses with a high level of admixture. The final imputation accuracy of the horses ranged from 91.2% to 99.5%. CONCLUSIONS Using Impute2, the imputation accuracy was higher than 91% for all horses in the validation population, which indicates that direct imputation of 50k SNP-chip data to sequence level genotypes is feasible in the FM population. The individual imputation accuracy depended mainly on the applied software and the level of admixture.

Parallel execution of Prolog programs: a survey

Since the early days of logic programming, researchers in the field realized the potential for exploitation of parallelism present in the execution of logic programs. Their high-level nature, the presence of nondeterminism, and their referential transparency, among other characteristics, make logic programs interesting candidates for obtaining speedups through parallel execution. At the same time, the fact that the typical applications of logic programming frequently involve irregular computations, make heavy use of dynamic data structures with logical variables, and involve search and speculation, makes the techniques used in the corresponding parallelizing compilers and run-time systems potentially interesting even outside the field. The objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive survey of the issues arising in parallel execution of logic programming languages along with the most relevant approaches explored to date in the field. Focus is mostly given to the challenges emerging from the parallel execution of Prolog programs. The article describes the major techniques used for shared memory implementation of Or-parallelism, And-parallelism, and combinations of the two. We also explore some related issues, such as memory management, compile-time analysis, and execution visualization.

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).

Towards description and optimization of abstract machines in an extension of prolog

Competitive abstract machines for Prolog are usually large, intricate, and incorpórate sophisticated optimizations. This makes them difñcult to code, optimize, and, especially, maintain and extend. This is partly due to the fact that efñciency considerations make it necessary to use low-level languages in their implementation. Writing the abstract machine (and ancillary code) in a higher-level language can help harness this inherent complexity. In this paper we show how the semantics of basic components of an efficient virtual machine for Prolog can be described using (a variant of) Prolog which retains much of its semantics. These descriptions are then compiled to C and assembled to build a complete bytecode emulator. Thanks to the high level of the language used and its closeness to Prolog the abstract machine descriptions can be manipulated using standard Prolog compilation and optimization techniques with relative ease. We also show how, by applying program transformations selectively, we obtain abstract machine implementations whose performance can match and even exceed that of highly-tuned, hand-crafted emulators.

Improving the compilation of prolog to C using moded types and determinism information

We describe the current status of and provide performance results for a prototype compiler of Prolog to C, ciaocc. ciaocc is novel in that it is designed to accept different kinds of high-level information, typically obtained via an automatic analysis of the initial Prolog program and expressed in a standardized language of assertions. This information is used to optimize the resulting C code, which is then processed by an off-the-shelf C compiler. The basic translation process essentially mimics the unfolding of a bytecode emulator with respect to the particular bytecode corresponding to the Prolog program. This is facilitated by a flexible design of the instructions and their lower-level components. This approach allows reusing a sizable amount of the machinery of the bytecode emulator: predicates already written in C, data definitions, memory management routines and áreas, etc., as well as mixing emulated bytecode with native code in a relatively straightforward way. We report on the performance of programs compiled by the current versión of the system, both with and without analysis information.

Programming with global analysis

Global data-flow analysis of (constraint) logic programs, which is generally based on abstract interpretation [7], is reaching a comparatively high level of maturity. A natural question is whether it is time for its routine incorporation in standard compilers, something which, beyond a few experimental systems, has not happened to date. Such incorporation arguably makes good sense only if: • the range of applications of global analysis is large enough to justify the additional complication in the compiler, and • global analysis technology can deal with all the features of "practical" languages (e.g., the ISO-Prolog built-ins) and "scales up" for large programs. We present a tutorial overview of a number of concepts and techniques directly related to the issues above, with special emphasis on the first one. In particular, we concéntrate on novel uses of global analysis during program development and debugging, rather than on the more traditional application área of program optimization. The idea of using abstract interpretation for validation and diagnosis has been studied in the context of imperative programming [2] and also of logic programming. The latter work includes issues such as using approximations to reduce the burden posed on programmers by declarative debuggers [6, 3] and automatically generating and checking assertions [4, 5] (which includes the more traditional type checking of strongly typed languages, such as Gódel or Mercury [1, 8, 9]) We also review some solutions for scalability including modular analysis, incremental analysis, and widening. Finally, we discuss solutions for dealing with meta-predicates, side-effects, delay declarations, constraints, dynamic predicates, and other such features which may appear in practical languages. In the discussion we will draw both from the literature and from our experience and that of others in the development and use of the CIAO system analyzer. In order to emphasize the practical aspects of the solutions discussed, the presentation of several concepts will be illustrated by examples run on the CIAO system, which makes extensive use of global analysis and assertions.

Contribución a la automatización de sistemas de respuesta frente a intrusiones mediante ontologías

La seguridad en redes informáticas es un área que ha sido ampliamente estudiada y objeto de una extensa investigación en los últimos años. Debido al continuo incremento en la complejidad y sofisticación de los ataques informáticos, el aumento de su velocidad de difusión, y la lentitud de reacción frente a las intrusiones existente en la actualidad, se hace patente la necesidad de mecanismos de detección y respuesta a intrusiones, que detecten y además sean capaces de bloquear el ataque, y mitiguen su impacto en la medida de lo posible. Los Sistemas de Detección de Intrusiones o IDSs son tecnologías bastante maduras cuyo objetivo es detectar cualquier comportamiento malicioso que ocurra en las redes. Estos sistemas han evolucionado rápidamente en los últimos años convirtiéndose en herramientas muy maduras basadas en diferentes paradigmas, que mejoran su capacidad de detección y le otorgan un alto nivel de fiabilidad. Por otra parte, un Sistema de Respuesta a Intrusiones (IRS) es un componente de seguridad que puede estar presente en la arquitectura de una red informática, capaz de reaccionar frente a los incidentes detectados por un Sistema de Detección de Intrusiones (IDS). Por desgracia, esta tecnología no ha evolucionado al mismo ritmo que los IDSs, y la reacción contra los ataques detectados es lenta y básica, y los sistemas presentan problemas para ejecutar respuestas de forma automática. Esta tesis doctoral trata de hacer frente al problema existente en la reacción automática frente a intrusiones, mediante el uso de ontologías, lenguajes formales de especificación de comportamiento y razonadores semánticos como base de la arquitectura del sistema de un sistema de respuesta automática frente a intrusiones o AIRS. El objetivo de la aproximación es aprovechar las ventajas de las ontologías en entornos heterogéneos, además de su capacidad para especificar comportamiento sobre los objetos que representan los elementos del dominio modelado. Esta capacidad para especificar comportamiento será de gran utilidad para que el AIRS infiera la respuesta óptima frente a una intrusión en el menor tiempo posible. Abstract Security in networks is an area that has been widely studied and has been the focus of extensive research over the past few years. The number of security events is increasing, and they are each time more sophisticated, and quickly spread, and slow reaction against intrusions, there is a need for intrusion detection and response systems to dynamically adapt so as to better detect and respond to attacks in order to mitigate them or reduce their impact. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) are mature technologies whose aim is detecting malicious behavior in the networks. These systems have quickly evolved and there are now very mature tools based on different paradigms (statistic anomaly-based, signature-based and hybrids) with a high level of reliability. On the other hand, Intrusion Response System (IRS) is a security technology able to react against the intrusions detected by IDS. Unfortunately, the state of the art in IRSs is not as mature as with IDSs. The reaction against intrusions is slow and simple, and these systems have difficulty detecting intrusions in real time and triggering automated responses. This dissertation is to address the existing problem in automated reactions against intrusions using ontologies, formal behaviour languages and semantic reasoners as the basis of the architecture of an automated intrusion response systems or AIRS. The aim is to take advantage of ontologies in heterogeneous environments, in addition to its ability to specify behavior of objects representing the elements of the modeling domain. This ability to specify behavior will be useful for the AIRS in the inference process of the optimum response against an intrusion, as quickly as possible.