Analysis and Transformation of Pipe-like Web Mashups for End User Programmers

Mashups are becoming increasingly popular as end users are able to easily access, manipulate, and compose data from several web sources. To support end users, communities are forming around mashup development environments that facilitate sharing code and knowledge. We have observed, however, that end user mashups tend to suffer from several deficiencies, such as inoperable components or references to invalid data sources, and that those deficiencies are often propagated through the rampant reuse in these end user communities. In this work, we identify and specify ten code smells indicative of deficiencies we observed in a sample of 8,051 pipe-like web mashups developed by thousands of end users in the popular Yahoo! Pipes environment. We show through an empirical study that end users generally prefer pipes that lack those smells, and then present eleven specialized refactorings that we designed to target and remove the smells. Our refactorings reduce the complexity of pipes, increase their abstraction, update broken sources of data and dated components, and standardize pipes to fit the community development patterns. Our assessment on the sample of mashups shows that smells are present in 81% of the pipes, and that the proposed refactorings can reduce that number to 16%, illustrating the potential of refactoring to support thousands of end users developing pipe-like mashups.

JVM-based Techniques for Improving Java Observability

Observability measures the support of computer systems to accurately capture, analyze, and present (collectively observe) the internal information about the systems. Observability frameworks play important roles for program understanding, troubleshooting, performance diagnosis, and optimizations. However, traditional solutions are either expensive or coarse-grained, consequently compromising their utility in accommodating today’s increasingly complex software systems. New solutions are emerging for VM-based languages due to the full control language VMs have over program executions. Existing such solutions, nonetheless, still lack flexibility, have high overhead, or provide limited context information for developing powerful dynamic analyses. In this thesis, we present a VM-based infrastructure, called marker tracing framework (MTF), to address the deficiencies in the existing solutions for providing better observability for VM-based languages. MTF serves as a solid foundation for implementing fine-grained low-overhead program instrumentation. Specifically, MTF allows analysis clients to: 1) define custom events with rich semantics ; 2) specify precisely the program locations where the events should trigger; and 3) adaptively enable/disable the instrumentation at runtime. In addition, MTF-based analysis clients are more powerful by having access to all information available to the VM. To demonstrate the utility and effectiveness of MTF, we present two analysis clients: 1) dynamic typestate analysis with adaptive online program analysis (AOPA); and 2) selective probabilistic calling context analysis (SPCC). In addition, we evaluate the runtime performance of MTF and the typestate client with the DaCapo benchmarks. The results show that: 1) MTF has acceptable runtime overhead when tracing moderate numbers of marker events; and 2) AOPA is highly effective in reducing the event frequency for the dynamic typestate analysis; and 3) language VMs can be exploited to offer greater observability.

A methodological research on software engineering applied to design of smart grids using a complex system approach

[ES] El reto de conseguir una red eléctrica más eficiente pasa por la introducción masiva de energías renovables en la red eléctrica, disminuyendo así las emisiones de CO2. Por ello, se propone no sólo controlar la producción, como se ha hecho hasta ahora, sino que también se propone controlar la demanda. Por ello, en esta investigación se evalúa el uso de la Ingeniería Dirigida por Modelos para gestionar la complejidad en el modelado de redes eléctricas, la Inteligencia de Negocio para analizar la gran cantidad de datos de simulaciones y la Inteligencia Colectiva para optimizar el reparto de energía entre los millones de dispositivos que se encuentran en el lado de la demanda.

A proposal for a virtual museum of computer science

A proposal for a virtual museum of computer science

Software zur automatischen Tumordiagnose in der funktionalen MRT der weiblichen Brust

In den westlichen Industrieländern ist das Mammakarzinom der häufigste bösartige Tumor der Frau. Sein weltweiter Anteil an allen Krebserkrankungen der Frau beläuft sich auf etwa 21 %. Inzwischen ist jede neunte Frau bedroht, während ihres Lebens an Brustkrebs zu erkranken. Die alterstandardisierte Mortalitätrate liegt derzeit bei knapp 27 %.rnrnDas Mammakarzinom hat eine relative geringe Wachstumsrate. Die Existenz eines diagnostischen Verfahrens, mit dem alle Mammakarzinome unter 10 mm Durchmesser erkannt und entfernt werden, würden den Tod durch Brustkrebs praktisch beseitigen. Denn die 20-Jahres-Überlebungsrate bei Erkrankung durch initiale Karzinome der Größe 5 bis 10 mm liegt mit über 95 % sehr hoch.rnrnMit der Kontrastmittel gestützten Bildgebung durch die MRT steht eine relativ junge Untersuchungsmethode zur Verfügung, die sensitiv genug zur Erkennung von Karzinomen ab einer Größe von 3 mm Durchmesser ist. Die diagnostische Methodik ist jedoch komplex, fehleranfällig, erfordert eine lange Einarbeitungszeit und somit viel Erfahrung des Radiologen.rnrnEine Computer unterstützte Diagnosesoftware kann die Qualität einer solch komplexen Diagnose erhöhen oder zumindest den Prozess beschleunigen. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Entwicklung einer vollautomatischen Diagnose Software, die als Zweitmeinungssystem eingesetzt werden kann. Meines Wissens existiert eine solche komplette Software bis heute nicht.rnrnDie Software führt eine Kette von verschiedenen Bildverarbeitungsschritten aus, die dem Vorgehen des Radiologen nachgeahmt wurden. Als Ergebnis wird eine selbstständige Diagnose für jede gefundene Läsion erstellt: Zuerst eleminiert eine 3d Bildregistrierung Bewegungsartefakte als Vorverarbeitungsschritt, um die Bildqualität der nachfolgenden Verarbeitungsschritte zu verbessern. Jedes kontrastanreichernde Objekt wird durch eine regelbasierte Segmentierung mit adaptiven Schwellwerten detektiert. Durch die Berechnung kinetischer und morphologischer Merkmale werden die Eigenschaften der Kontrastmittelaufnahme, Form-, Rand- und Textureeigenschaften für jedes Objekt beschrieben. Abschließend werden basierend auf den erhobenen Featurevektor durch zwei trainierte neuronale Netze jedes Objekt in zusätzliche Funde oder in gut- oder bösartige Läsionen klassifiziert.rnrnDie Leistungsfähigkeit der Software wurde auf Bilddaten von 101 weiblichen Patientinnen getested, die 141 histologisch gesicherte Läsionen enthielten. Die Vorhersage der Gesundheit dieser Läsionen ergab eine Sensitivität von 88 % bei einer Spezifität von 72 %. Diese Werte sind den in der Literatur bekannten Vorhersagen von Expertenradiologen ähnlich. Die Vorhersagen enthielten durchschnittlich 2,5 zusätzliche bösartige Funde pro Patientin, die sich als falsch klassifizierte Artefakte herausstellten.rn

Software tools and efficient algorithms for the feature detection, feature tracking, event localization, and visualization of large sets of atmospheric data

Data sets describing the state of the earth's atmosphere are of great importance in the atmospheric sciences. Over the last decades, the quality and sheer amount of the available data increased significantly, resulting in a rising demand for new tools capable of handling and analysing these large, multidimensional sets of atmospheric data. The interdisciplinary work presented in this thesis covers the development and the application of practical software tools and efficient algorithms from the field of computer science, aiming at the goal of enabling atmospheric scientists to analyse and to gain new insights from these large data sets. For this purpose, our tools combine novel techniques with well-established methods from different areas such as scientific visualization and data segmentation. In this thesis, three practical tools are presented. Two of these tools are software systems (Insight and IWAL) for different types of processing and interactive visualization of data, the third tool is an efficient algorithm for data segmentation implemented as part of Insight.Insight is a toolkit for the interactive, three-dimensional visualization and processing of large sets of atmospheric data, originally developed as a testing environment for the novel segmentation algorithm. It provides a dynamic system for combining at runtime data from different sources, a variety of different data processing algorithms, and several visualization techniques. Its modular architecture and flexible scripting support led to additional applications of the software, from which two examples are presented: the usage of Insight as a WMS (web map service) server, and the automatic production of a sequence of images for the visualization of cyclone simulations. The core application of Insight is the provision of the novel segmentation algorithm for the efficient detection and tracking of 3D features in large sets of atmospheric data, as well as for the precise localization of the occurring genesis, lysis, merging and splitting events. Data segmentation usually leads to a significant reduction of the size of the considered data. This enables a practical visualization of the data, statistical analyses of the features and their events, and the manual or automatic detection of interesting situations for subsequent detailed investigation. The concepts of the novel algorithm, its technical realization, and several extensions for avoiding under- and over-segmentation are discussed. As example applications, this thesis covers the setup and the results of the segmentation of upper-tropospheric jet streams and cyclones as full 3D objects. Finally, IWAL is presented, which is a web application for providing an easy interactive access to meteorological data visualizations, primarily aimed at students. As a web application, the needs to retrieve all input data sets and to install and handle complex visualization tools on a local machine are avoided. The main challenge in the provision of customizable visualizations to large numbers of simultaneous users was to find an acceptable trade-off between the available visualization options and the performance of the application. Besides the implementational details, benchmarks and the results of a user survey are presented.

Learning Software Engineering via Internet

In recent years, education authorities worldwide, including the German Federal Government, have invested heavily in the development of e-learning and multimedia materials for institutions of higher learning. While for some subject matters the benefits of e-learning seem obvious, there are subjects, often consisting of a number of tenuously connected topics or requiring a balance of learning and training, for which it is a valid question whether appropriate learning materials can be presented via the Internet. Software Engineering belongs to this second group, both for its broad collection of topics and, particularly, for the required emphasis on teamwork and communication training.

On Software Engineering Repositories and Their Open Problems

In the last decade, a large number of software repositories have been created for different purposes. In this paper we present a survey of the publicly available repositories and classify the most common ones as well as discussing the problems faced by researchers when applying machine learning or statistical techniques to them.

The Risk of Using the Q Heterogeneity Estimator for Software Engineering Experiments

All meta-analyses should include a heterogeneity analysis. Even so, it is not easy to decide whether a set of studies are homogeneous or heterogeneous because of the low statistical power of the statistics used (usually the Q test). Objective: Determine a set of rules enabling SE researchers to find out, based on the characteristics of the experiments to be aggregated, whether or not it is feasible to accurately detect heterogeneity. Method: Evaluate the statistical power of heterogeneity detection methods using a Monte Carlo simulation process. Results: The Q test is not powerful when the meta-analysis contains up to a total of about 200 experimental subjects and the effect size difference is less than 1. Conclusions: The Q test cannot be used as a decision-making criterion for meta-analysis in small sample settings like SE. Random effects models should be used instead of fixed effects models. Caution should be exercised when applying Q test-mediated decomposition into subgroups.

Quantitative Determination of the Relationship between Internal Validity and Bias in Software Engineering Experiments: Consequences for Systematic Literature Reviews

Quality assessment is one of the activities performed as part of systematic literature reviews. It is commonly accepted that a good quality experiment is bias free. Bias is considered to be related to internal validity (e.g., how adequately the experiment is planned, executed and analysed). Quality assessment is usually conducted using checklists and quality scales. It has not yet been proven;however, that quality is related to experimental bias. Aim: Identify whether there is a relationship between internal validity and bias in software engineering experiments. Method: We built a quality scale to determine the quality of the studies, which we applied to 28 experiments included in two systematic literature reviews. We proposed an objective indicator of experimental bias, which we applied to the same 28 experiments. Finally, we analysed the correlations between the quality scores and the proposed measure of bias. Results: We failed to find a relationship between the global quality score (resulting from the quality scale) and bias; however, we did identify interesting correlations between bias and some particular aspects of internal validity measured by the instrument. Conclusions: There is an empirically provable relationship between internal validity and bias. It is feasible to apply quality assessment in systematic literature reviews, subject to limits on the internal validity aspects for consideration.

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).

Relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations. A case study in Spanish computer science production in 2000-2009.

This paper analyzes the relationship among research collaboration, number of documents and number of citations of computer science research activity. It analyzes the number of documents and citations and how they vary by number of authors. They are also analyzed (according to author set cardinality) under different circumstances, that is, when documents are written in different types of collaboration, when documents are published in different document types, when documents are published in different computer science subdisciplines, and, finally, when documents are published by journals with different impact factor quartiles. To investigate the above relationships, this paper analyzes the publications listed in the Web of Science and produced by active Spanish university professors between 2000 and 2009, working in the computer science field. Analyzing all documents, we show that the highest percentage of documents are published by three authors, whereas single-authored documents account for the lowest percentage. By number of citations, there is no positive association between the author cardinality and citation impact. Statistical tests show that documents written by two authors receive more citations per document and year than documents published by more authors. In contrast, results do not show statistically significant differences between documents published by two authors and one author. The research findings suggest that international collaboration results on average in publications with higher citation rates than national and institutional collaborations. We also find differences regarding citation rates between journals and conferences, across different computer science subdisciplines and journal quartiles as expected. Finally, our impression is that the collaborative level (number of authors per document) will increase in the coming years, and documents published by three or four authors will be the trend in computer science literature.