Cultural Knowledge for Named Entity Disambiguation: A Graph-Based Semantic Relatedness Approach

One of the ultimate aims of Natural Language Processing is to automate the analysis of the meaning of text. A fundamental step in that direction consists in enabling effective ways to automatically link textual references to their referents, that is, real world objects. The work presented in this paper addresses the problem of attributing a sense to proper names in a given text, i.e., automatically associating words representing Named Entities with their referents. The method for Named Entity Disambiguation proposed here is based on the concept of semantic relatedness, which in this work is obtained via a graph-based model over Wikipedia. We show that, without building the traditional bag of words representation of the text, but instead only considering named entities within the text, the proposed method achieves results competitive with the state-of-the-art on two different datasets.

Overview of the ShARe/CLEF eHealth Evaluation Lab 2014

This paper reports on the 2nd ShARe/CLEFeHealth evaluation lab which continues our evaluation resource building activities for the medical domain. In this lab we focus on patients' information needs as opposed to the more common campaign focus of the specialised information needs of physicians and other healthcare workers. The usage scenario of the lab is to ease patients and next-of-kins' ease in understanding eHealth information, in particular clinical reports. The 1st ShARe/CLEFeHealth evaluation lab was held in 2013. This lab consisted of three tasks. Task 1 focused on named entity recognition and normalization of disorders; Task 2 on normalization of acronyms/abbreviations; and Task 3 on information retrieval to address questions patients may have when reading clinical reports. This year's lab introduces a new challenge in Task 1 on visual-interactive search and exploration of eHealth data. Its aim is to help patients (or their next-of-kin) in readability issues related to their hospital discharge documents and related information search on the Internet. Task 2 then continues the information extraction work of the 2013 lab, specifically focusing on disorder attribute identification and normalization from clinical text. Finally, this year's Task 3 further extends the 2013 information retrieval task, by cleaning the 2013 document collection and introducing a new query generation method and multilingual queries. De-identified clinical reports used by the three tasks were from US intensive care and originated from the MIMIC II database. Other text documents for Tasks 1 and 3 were from the Internet and originated from the Khresmoi project. Task 2 annotations originated from the ShARe annotations. For Tasks 1 and 3, new annotations, queries, and relevance assessments were created. 50, 79, and 91 people registered their interest in Tasks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 24 unique teams participated with 1, 10, and 14 teams in Tasks 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The teams were from Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, and North America. The Task 1 submission, reviewed by 5 expert peers, related to the task evaluation category of Effective use of interaction and targeted the needs of both expert and novice users. The best system had an Accuracy of 0.868 in Task 2a, an F1-score of 0.576 in Task 2b, and Precision at 10 (P@10) of 0.756 in Task 3. The results demonstrate the substantial community interest and capabilities of these systems in making clinical reports easier to understand for patients. The organisers have made data and tools available for future research and development.

基于小规模尾字特征的中文命名实体识别研究

本文针对难度最大的两类命名实体(地名和机构名)在条件随机场框架下首次引入了小规模的常用尾字特征．实验表明，该特征与词类特征具有一定的互补性，联合使用可以以较小的训练代价显著提高专有名词的识别性能，特别是机构名的识别精度．该系统在我国863简体命名实体识别评测语料上专名(人名、地名和机构名)总体F1值达踞．76％，超过当年最佳系统8．63个百分点．在SIGHAN 2006命名实体识别语料上的结果也居于前列．

基于单字提示特征的中文命名实体识别快速算法

近年来条件随机场(CRF)模型在自然语言处理中的应用越来越广泛。标准的线性链(Linear-chain)模型一般采用L—BFGS参数估计方法，收敛速度慢。本文在分析模型复杂度的基础上提出了一种改进的快速CRF算法。该算法通过引入小规模单字特征降低特征的规模，并通过在推理过程中引入任务相关的人工知识压缩Viterbi和Baum-Welch格搜索空间，提高了训练的速度。在中文863命名实体识别评测语料和SIGHAN06语料集上进行的实验表明，该算法在不影响中文命名实体识别精度的同时，有效地降低了模型的训练代价。

基于半马尔科夫条件随机场的命名体识别及其关系抽取研究

随着互联网和电子化办公的发展，出现了大量的文本资源。信息抽取技术可以帮助人们快速获取大规模文本中的有用信息。命名体识别与关系抽取是信息抽取的两个基本任务。本文在调研当前命名体识别和实体关系抽取中采用的主要方法的基础上，分别给出了解决方案。论文开展的主要工作有：（1）从模型选择和特征选择两个方面总结了命名体识别及实体关系抽取的国内外研究现状，重点介绍用于命名体识别的统计学习方法以及用于实体关系抽取的基于核的方法。（2）针对当前命名体识别中命名体片段边界的确定问题，研究了如何将 Semi-Markov CRFs 模型应用于中文命名体识别。这种模型只要求段间遵循马尔科夫规则，而段内的文本之间则可以被灵活的赋予各种规则。将这种模型用于中文命名体识别任务时，我们可以更有效更自由的设计出各种有利于识别出命名体片段边界的特征。实验表明，加入段相关的特征后，命名体识别的性能提高了 4-5 个百分点。（3）实体关系抽取的任务是判别两个实体之间的语义关系。之前的研究已经表明，待判别关系的两个实体间的语法树结构对于确定二者的关系类别是非常有用的，而相对成熟的基于平面特征的关系抽取方法在充分提取语法树结构特征方面的能力有限，因此，本文研究了基于核的中文实体关系抽取方法。针对中文特点，我们探讨了卷积（Convolution）核中使用不同的语法树对中文实体关系抽取性能的影响，构造了几种基于卷积核的复合核，改进了最短路依赖核。因为核方法开始被用于英文关系抽取时，F1 值也只有40%左右，而我们只使用作用在语法树上的卷积核时，中文关系抽取的F1 值达到了35%，可见核方法对中文关系抽取也是有效的。

Towards Cloud-Based Knowledge Capturing Based on Natural Language Processing

Paper presented at the Cloud Forward Conference 2015, October 6th-8th, Pisa

Medical information extraction in European Portuguese

The electronic storage of medical patient data is becoming a daily experience in most of the practices and hospitals worldwide. However, much of the data available is in free-form text, a convenient way of expressing concepts and events, but especially challenging if one wants to perform automatic searches, summarization or statistical analysis. Information Extraction can relieve some of these problems by offering a semantically informed interpretation and abstraction of the texts. MedInX, the Medical Information eXtraction system presented in this document, is the first information extraction system developed to process textual clinical discharge records written in Portuguese. The main goal of the system is to improve access to the information locked up in unstructured text, and, consequently, the efficiency of the health care process, by allowing faster and reliable access to quality information on health, for both patient and health professionals. MedInX components are based on Natural Language Processing principles, and provide several mechanisms to read, process and utilize external resources, such as terminologies and ontologies, in the process of automatic mapping of free text reports onto a structured representation. However, the flexible and scalable architecture of the system, also allowed its application to the task of Named Entity Recognition on a shared evaluation contest focused on Portuguese general domain free-form texts. The evaluation of the system on a set of authentic hospital discharge letters indicates that the system performs with 95% F-measure, on the task of entity recognition, and 95% precision on the task of relation extraction. Example applications, demonstrating the use of MedInX capabilities in real applications in the hospital setting, are also presented in this document. These applications were designed to answer common clinical problems related with the automatic coding of diagnoses and other health-related conditions described in the documents, according to the international classification systems ICD-9-CM and ICF. The automatic review of the content and completeness of the documents is an example of another developed application, denominated MedInX Clinical Audit system.

Mining biomedical information from scientific literature

The rapid evolution and proliferation of a world-wide computerized network, the Internet, resulted in an overwhelming and constantly growing amount of publicly available data and information, a fact that was also verified in biomedicine. However, the lack of structure of textual data inhibits its direct processing by computational solutions. Information extraction is the task of text mining that intends to automatically collect information from unstructured text data sources. The goal of the work described in this thesis was to build innovative solutions for biomedical information extraction from scientific literature, through the development of simple software artifacts for developers and biocurators, delivering more accurate, usable and faster results. We started by tackling named entity recognition - a crucial initial task - with the development of Gimli, a machine-learning-based solution that follows an incremental approach to optimize extracted linguistic characteristics for each concept type. Afterwards, Totum was built to harmonize concept names provided by heterogeneous systems, delivering a robust solution with improved performance results. Such approach takes advantage of heterogenous corpora to deliver cross-corpus harmonization that is not constrained to specific characteristics. Since previous solutions do not provide links to knowledge bases, Neji was built to streamline the development of complex and custom solutions for biomedical concept name recognition and normalization. This was achieved through a modular and flexible framework focused on speed and performance, integrating a large amount of processing modules optimized for the biomedical domain. To offer on-demand heterogenous biomedical concept identification, we developed BeCAS, a web application, service and widget. We also tackled relation mining by developing TrigNER, a machine-learning-based solution for biomedical event trigger recognition, which applies an automatic algorithm to obtain the best linguistic features and model parameters for each event type. Finally, in order to assist biocurators, Egas was developed to support rapid, interactive and real-time collaborative curation of biomedical documents, through manual and automatic in-line annotation of concepts and relations. Overall, the research work presented in this thesis contributed to a more accurate update of current biomedical knowledge bases, towards improved hypothesis generation and knowledge discovery.

Frame-driven Extraction of Linked Data and Ontologies from Text

Ontology design and population -core aspects of semantic technologies- re- cently have become fields of great interest due to the increasing need of domain-specific knowledge bases that can boost the use of Semantic Web. For building such knowledge resources, the state of the art tools for ontology design require a lot of human work. Producing meaningful schemas and populating them with domain-specific data is in fact a very difficult and time-consuming task. Even more if the task consists in modelling knowledge at a web scale. The primary aim of this work is to investigate a novel and flexible method- ology for automatically learning ontology from textual data, lightening the human workload required for conceptualizing domain-specific knowledge and populating an extracted schema with real data, speeding up the whole ontology production process. Here computational linguistics plays a fundamental role, from automati- cally identifying facts from natural language and extracting frame of relations among recognized entities, to producing linked data with which extending existing knowledge bases or creating new ones. In the state of the art, automatic ontology learning systems are mainly based on plain-pipelined linguistics classifiers performing tasks such as Named Entity recognition, Entity resolution, Taxonomy and Relation extraction [11]. These approaches present some weaknesses, specially in capturing struc- tures through which the meaning of complex concepts is expressed [24]. Humans, in fact, tend to organize knowledge in well-defined patterns, which include participant entities and meaningful relations linking entities with each other. In literature, these structures have been called Semantic Frames by Fill- 6 Introduction more [20], or more recently as Knowledge Patterns [23]. Some NLP studies has recently shown the possibility of performing more accurate deep parsing with the ability of logically understanding the structure of discourse [7]. In this work, some of these technologies have been investigated and em- ployed to produce accurate ontology schemas. The long-term goal is to collect large amounts of semantically structured information from the web of crowds, through an automated process, in order to identify and investigate the cognitive patterns used by human to organize their knowledge.

MIRACLE at GeoCLEF 2005: First Experiments in Geographical IR

This paper presents the 2005 MIRACLE team’s approach to Cross-Language Geographical Retrieval (GeoCLEF). The main goal of the GeoCLEF participation of the MIRACLE team was to test the effect that geographical information retrieval techniques have on information retrieval. The baseline approach is based on the development of named entity recognition and geospatial information retrieval tools and on its combination with linguistic techniques to carry out indexing and retrieval tasks.

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).

Estudio de fiabilidad y viabilidad de la Web 2.0 y la Web semántica para enriquecer lexicones en el dominio farmacológico

Los actuales sistemas de Reconocimiento de Entidades en el dominio farmacológico, necesarios como apoyo para el personal sanitario en el proceso de prescripción de un tratamiento farmacológico, sufren limitaciones relacionadas con la falta de cobertura de las bases de datos oficiales. Parece por tanto necesario analizar la fiabilidad de los recursos actuales existentes, tanto en la Web Semántica como en la Web 2.0, y determinar si es o no viable utilizar dichos recursos como fuentes de información complementarias que permitan generar y/o enriquecer lexicones empleados por sistemas de Reconocimiento de Entidades. Por ello, en este trabajo se analizan las principales fuentes de información relativas al dominio farmacológico disponibles en Internet. Este análisis permite concluir que existe información fiable y que dicha información permitiría enriquecer los lexicones existentes con sinónimos y otras variaciones léxicas o incluso con información histórica no recogida ni mantenida en las bases de datos oficiales.

Relation discovery from web data for competency management

In current organizations, valuable enterprise knowledge is often buried under rapidly expanding huge amount of unstructured information in the form of web pages, blogs, and other forms of human text communications. We present a novel unsupervised machine learning method called CORDER (COmmunity Relation Discovery by named Entity Recognition) to turn these unstructured data into structured information for knowledge management in these organizations. CORDER exploits named entity recognition and co-occurrence data to associate individuals in an organization with their expertise and associates. We discuss the problems associated with evaluating unsupervised learners and report our initial evaluation experiments in an expert evaluation, a quantitative benchmarking, and an application of CORDER in a social networking tool called BuddyFinder.

Mining web data for competency management

We present CORDER (COmmunity Relation Discovery by named Entity Recognition) an un-supervised machine learning algorithm that exploits named entity recognition and co-occurrence data to associate individuals in an organization with their expertise and associates. We discuss the problems associated with evaluating unsupervised learners and report our initial evaluation experiments.

Entity-based semantic search on conversational transcripts semantic

This paper describes the implementation of a semantic web search engine on conversation styled transcripts. Our choice of data is Hansard, a publicly available conversation style transcript of parliamentary debates. The current search engine implementation on Hansard is limited to running search queries based on keywords or phrases hence lacks the ability to make semantic inferences from user queries. By making use of knowledge such as the relationship between members of parliament, constituencies, terms of office, as well as topics of debates the search results can be improved in terms of both relevance and coverage. Our contribution is not algorithmic instead we describe how we exploit a collection of external data sources, ontologies, semantic web vocabularies and named entity extraction in the analysis of underlying semantics of user queries as well as the semantic enrichment of the search index thereby improving the quality of results.