Personalized touristic routes implementing semantic web on GIS

Nowadays, when a user is planning a touristic route is very difficult to find out which are the best places to visit. The user has to choose considering his/her preferences due to the great quantity of information it is possible to find in the web and taking into account it is necessary to do a selection, within small time because there is a limited time to do a trip. In Itiner@ project, we aim to implement Semantic Web technology combined with Geographic Information Systems in order to offer personalized touristic routes around a region based on user preferences and time situation. Using ontologies it is possible to link, structure, share data and obtain the result more suitable for user's preferences and actual situation with less time and more precisely than without ontologies. To achieve these objectives we propose a web page combining a GIS server and a touristic ontology. As a step further, we also study how to extend this technology on mobile devices due to the raising interest and technological progress of these devices and location-based services, which allows the user to have all the route information on the hand when he/she does a touristic trip. We design a little application in order to apply the combination of GIS and Semantic Web in a mobile device.

Semantic web adoption: online tools for web evaluation and metadata extraction

This work briefly analyses the difficulties to adopt the Semantic Web, and in particular proposes systems to know the present level of migration to the different technologies that make up the Semantic Web. It focuses on the presentation and description of two tools, DigiDocSpider and DigiDocMetaEdit, designed with the aim of verifYing, evaluating, and promoting its implementation.

Personalized touristic routes implementing semantic web on GIS

Nowadays, when a user is planning a touristic route is very difficult to find out which are the best places to visit. The user has to choose considering his/her preferences due to the great quantity of information it is possible to find in the web and taking into account it is necessary to do a selection, within small time because there is a limited time to do a trip. In Itiner@ project, we aim to implement Semantic Web technology combined with Geographic Information Systems in order to offer personalized touristic routes around a region based on user preferences and time situation. Using ontologies it is possible to link, structure, share data and obtain the result more suitable for user's preferences and actual situation with less time and more precisely than without ontologies. To achieve these objectives we propose a web page combining a GIS server and a touristic ontology. As a step further, we also study how to extend this technology on mobile devices due to the raising interest and technological progress of these devices and location-based services, which allows the user to have all the route information on the hand when he/she does a touristic trip. We design a little application in order to apply the combination of GIS and Semantic Web in a mobile device.

Building a usable and accessible semantic web interaction platform

Semantic Web applications take off is being slower than expected, at least with respect to “real-world” applications and users. One of the main reasons for this lack of adoption is that most Semantic Web user interfaces are still immature from the usability and accessibility points of view. This is due to the novelty of these technologies, but this also motivates the exploration of alternative interaction paradigms, different from the “traditional” Web or Desktop applications ones. Our proposal is realized in the Rhizomer platform, which explores the possibilities of the object–action interaction paradigm at the Web scale. This paradigm is well suited for heterogeneous resource spaces such as those common in the Semantic Web. Resources, described by metadata, correspond to the objects in the paradigm. Semantic web services, which are dynamically associated to these objects, correspond to the actions. The platform is being put into practice in the context of a research project in order to build an open application for media distribution based on Semantic Web technologies. Moreover, its usability and accessibility have been evaluated in this real setting and compared to similar systems.

Semantic Web applications: a framework for industry and business exploitation – What is needed for the adoption of the Semantic Web from the market and industry

In recent years, Semantic Web (SW) research has resulted in significant outcomes. Various industries have adopted SW technologies, while the ‘deep web’ is still pursuing the critical transformation point, in which the majority of data found on the deep web will be exploited through SW value layers. In this article we analyse the SW applications from a ‘market’ perspective. We are setting the key requirements for real-world information systems that are SW-enabled and we discuss the major difficulties for the SW uptake that has been delayed. This article contributes to the literature of SW and knowledge management providing a context for discourse towards best practices on SW-based information systems.

Automatically constructing the semantic web

The storage and processing capacity realised by computing has lead to an explosion of data retention. We now reach the point of information overload and must begin to use computers to process more complex information. In particular, the proposition of the Semantic Web has given structure to this problem, but has yet realised practically. The largest of its problems is that of ontology construction; without a suitable automatic method most will have to be encoded by hand. In this paper we discus the current methods for semi and fully automatic construction and their current shortcomings. In particular we pay attention the application of ontologies to products and the particle application of the ontologies.

Slogger: a profiling and analysis system based on semantic web technologies

Increasingly, distributed systems are being used to host all manner of applications. While these platforms provide a relatively cheap and effective means of executing applications, so far there has been little work in developing tools and utilities that can help application developers understand problems with the supporting software, or the executing applications. To fully understand why an application executing on a distributed system is not behaving as would be expected it is important that not only the application, but also the underlying middleware, and the operating system are analysed too, otherwise issues could be missed and certainly overall performance profiling and fault diagnoses would be harder to understand. We believe that one approach to profiling and the analysis of distributed systems and the associated applications is via the plethora of log files generated at runtime. In this paper we report on a system (Slogger), that utilises various emerging Semantic Web technologies to gather the heterogeneous log files generated by the various layers in a distributed system and unify them in common data store. Once unified, the log data can be queried and visualised in order to highlight potential problems or issues that may be occurring in the supporting software or the application itself.

The effects of web logs and the semantic web on autonomous web agents

Search engines exploit the Web's hyperlink structure to help infer information content. The new phenomenon of personal Web logs, or 'blogs', encourage more extensive annotation of Web content. If their resulting link structures bias the Web crawling applications that search engines depend upon, there are implications for another form of annotation rapidly on the rise, the Semantic Web. We conducted a Web crawl of 160 000 pages in which the link structure of the Web is compared with that of several thousand blogs. Results show that the two link structures are significantly different. We analyse the differences and infer the likely effect upon the performance of existing and future Web agents. The Semantic Web offers new opportunities to navigate the Web, but Web agents should be designed to take advantage of the emerging link structures, or their effectiveness will diminish.

Transparent access to relational, autonomous and distributed databases using semantic web and service oriented technologies

With the constant grow of enterprises and the need to share information across departments and business areas becomes more critical, companies are turning to integration to provide a method for interconnecting heterogeneous, distributed and autonomous systems. Whether the sales application needs to interface with the inventory application, the procurement application connect to an auction site, it seems that any application can be made better by integrating it with other applications. Integration between applications can face several troublesome due the fact that applications may not have been designed and implemented having integration in mind. Regarding to integration issues, two tier software systems, composed by the database tier and by the “front-end” tier (interface), have shown some limitations. As a solution to overcome the two tier limitations, three tier systems were proposed in the literature. Thus, by adding a middle-tier (referred as middleware) between the database tier and the “front-end” tier (or simply referred application), three main benefits emerge. The first benefit is related with the fact that the division of software systems in three tiers enables increased integration capabilities with other systems. The second benefit is related with the fact that any modifications to the individual tiers may be carried out without necessarily affecting the other tiers and integrated systems and the third benefit, consequence of the others, is related with less maintenance tasks in software system and in all integrated systems. Concerning software development in three tiers, this dissertation focus on two emerging technologies, Semantic Web and Service Oriented Architecture, combined with middleware. These two technologies blended with middleware, which resulted in the development of Swoat framework (Service and Semantic Web Oriented ArchiTecture), lead to the following four synergic advantages: (1) allow the creation of loosely-coupled systems, decoupling the database from “front-end” tiers, therefore reducing maintenance; (2) the database schema is transparent to “front-end” tiers which are aware of the information model (or domain model) that describes what data is accessible; (3) integration with other heterogeneous systems is allowed by providing services provided by the middleware; (4) the service request by the “frontend” tier focus on ‘what’ data and not on ‘where’ and ‘how’ related issues, reducing this way the application development time by developers.

Il fascicolo sanitario elettronico tra Semantic Web e diritto alla privacy

Principale obiettivo della ricerca è quello di ricostruire lo stato dell’arte in materia di sanità elettronica e Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico, con una precipua attenzione ai temi della protezione dei dati personali e dell’interoperabilità. A tal fine sono stati esaminati i documenti, vincolanti e non, dell’Unione europea nonché selezionati progetti europei e nazionali (come “Smart Open Services for European Patients” (EU); “Elektronische Gesundheitsakte” (Austria); “MedCom” (Danimarca); “Infrastruttura tecnologica del Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico”, “OpenInFSE: Realizzazione di un’infrastruttura operativa a supporto dell’interoperabilità delle soluzioni territoriali di fascicolo sanitario elettronico nel contesto del sistema pubblico di connettività”, “Evoluzione e interoperabilità tecnologica del Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico”, “IPSE - Sperimentazione di un sistema per l’interoperabilità europea e nazionale delle soluzioni di Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico: componenti Patient Summary e ePrescription” (Italia)). Le analisi giuridiche e tecniche mostrano il bisogno urgente di definire modelli che incoraggino l’utilizzo di dati sanitari ed implementino strategie effettive per l’utilizzo con finalità secondarie di dati sanitari digitali , come Open Data e Linked Open Data. L’armonizzazione giuridica e tecnologica è vista come aspetto strategico per ridurre i conflitti in materia di protezione di dati personali esistenti nei Paesi membri nonché la mancanza di interoperabilità tra i sistemi informativi europei sui Fascicoli Sanitari Elettronici. A questo scopo sono state individuate tre linee guida: (1) armonizzazione normativa, (2) armonizzazione delle regole, (3) armonizzazione del design dei sistemi informativi. I principi della Privacy by Design (“prottivi” e “win-win”), così come gli standard del Semantic Web, sono considerate chiavi risolutive per il suddetto cambiamento.

Applying Fuzzy Ontologies to Implement the Social Semantic Web

Because the knowledge in the World Wide Web is continuously expanding, Web Knowledge Aggregation, Representation and Reasoning (abbreviated as KR) is becoming increasingly important. This article demonstrates how fuzzy ontologies can be used in KR to improve the interactions between humans and computers. The gap between the Social and Semantic Web can be reduced, and a Social Semantic Web may become possible. As an illustrative example, we demonstrate how fuzzy logic and KR can enhance technologies for cognitive cities. The underlying notion of these technologies is based on connectivism, which can be improved by incorporating the results of digital humanities research.

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).

Semantic technologies in idea management systems: a model for interoperability, linking and filtering

Abstract Idea Management Systems are web applications that implement the notion of open innovation though crowdsourcing. Typically, organizations use those kind of systems to connect to large communities in order to gather ideas for improvement of products or services. Originating from simple suggestion boxes, Idea Management Systems advanced beyond collecting ideas and aspire to be a knowledge management solution capable to select best ideas via collaborative as well as expert assessment methods. In practice, however, the contemporary systems still face a number of problems usually related to information overflow and recognizing questionable quality of submissions with reasonable time and effort allocation. This thesis focuses on idea assessment problem area and contributes a number of solutions that allow to filter, compare and evaluate ideas submitted into an Idea Management System. With respect to Idea Management System interoperability the thesis proposes theoretical model of Idea Life Cycle and formalizes it as the Gi2MO ontology which enables to go beyond the boundaries of a single system to compare and assess innovation in an organization wide or market wide context. Furthermore, based on the ontology, the thesis builds a number of solutions for improving idea assessment via: community opinion analysis (MARL), annotation of idea characteristics (Gi2MO Types) and study of idea relationships (Gi2MO Links). The main achievements of the thesis are: application of theoretical innovation models for practice of Idea Management to successfully recognize the differentiation between communities, opinion metrics and their recognition as a new tool for idea assessment, discovery of new relationship types between ideas and their impact on idea clustering. Finally, the thesis outcome is establishment of Gi2MO Project that serves as an incubator for Idea Management solutions and mature open-source software alternatives for the widely available commercial suites. From the academic point of view the project delivers resources to undertake experiments in the Idea Management Systems area and managed to become a forum that gathered a number of academic and industrial partners. Resumen Los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas son aplicaciones Web que implementan el concepto de innovación abierta con técnicas de crowdsourcing. Típicamente, las organizaciones utilizan ese tipo de sistemas para conectar con comunidades grandes y así recoger ideas sobre cómo mejorar productos o servicios. Los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas lian avanzado más allá de recoger simplemente ideas de buzones de sugerencias y ahora aspiran ser una solución de gestión de conocimiento capaz de seleccionar las mejores ideas por medio de técnicas colaborativas, así como métodos de evaluación llevados a cabo por expertos. Sin embargo, en la práctica, los sistemas contemporáneos todavía se enfrentan a una serie de problemas, que, por lo general, están relacionados con la sobrecarga de información y el reconocimiento de las ideas de dudosa calidad con la asignación de un tiempo y un esfuerzo razonables. Esta tesis se centra en el área de la evaluación de ideas y aporta una serie de soluciones que permiten filtrar, comparar y evaluar las ideas publicadas en un Sistema de Gestión de Ideas. Con respecto a la interoperabilidad de los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas, la tesis propone un modelo teórico del Ciclo de Vida de la Idea y lo formaliza como la ontología Gi2MO que permite ir más allá de los límites de un sistema único para comparar y evaluar la innovación en un contexto amplio dentro de cualquier organización o mercado. Por otra parte, basado en la ontología, la tesis desarrolla una serie de soluciones para mejorar la evaluación de las ideas a través de: análisis de las opiniones de la comunidad (MARL), la anotación de las características de las ideas (Gi2MO Types) y el estudio de las relaciones de las ideas (Gi2MO Links). Los logros principales de la tesis son: la aplicación de los modelos teóricos de innovación para la práctica de Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas para reconocer las diferenciasentre comu¬nidades, métricas de opiniones de comunidad y su reconocimiento como una nueva herramienta para la evaluación de ideas, el descubrimiento de nuevos tipos de relaciones entre ideas y su impacto en la agrupación de estas. Por último, el resultado de tesis es el establecimiento de proyecto Gi2MO que sirve como incubadora de soluciones para Gestión de Ideas y herramientas de código abierto ya maduras como alternativas a otros sistemas comerciales. Desde el punto de vista académico, el proyecto ha provisto de recursos a ciertos experimentos en el área de Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas y logró convertirse en un foro que reunión para un número de socios tanto académicos como industriales.

A Focused Crawler in order to Get Semantic Web Resources (CSR)

This paper presents a Focused Crawler in order to Get Semantic Web Resources (CSR). Structured data web are available in formats such as Extensible Markup Language (XML), Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Ontology Web Language (OWL) that can be used for processing. One of the main challenges for performing a manual search and download semantic web resources is that this task consumes a lot of time. Our research work propose a focused crawler which allow to download these resources automatically and store them on disk in order to have a collection that will be used for data processing. CRS consists of three layers: (a) The User Interface Layer, (b) The Focus Crawler Layer and (c) The Base Crawler Layer. CSR uses as a selection policie the Shark-Search method. CSR was conducted with two experiments. The first one starts on December 15 2012 at 7:11 am and ends on December 16 2012 at 4:01 were obtained 448,123,537 bytes of data. The CSR ends by itself after to analyze 80,4375 seeds with an unlimited depth. CSR got 16,576 semantic resources files where the 89 % was RDF, the 10 % was XML and the 1% was OWL. The second one was based on the Web Data Commons work of the Research Group Data and Web Science at the University of Mannheim and the Institute AIFB at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. This began at 4:46 am of June 2 2013 and 1:37 am June 9 2013. After 162.51 hours of execution the result was 285,279 semantic resources where predominated the XML resources with 99 % and OWL and RDF with 1 % each one.

An approach to ontology for institutional facts in the semantic web

Refinement in software engineering allows a specification to be developed in stages, with design decisions taken at earlier stages constraining the design at later stages. Refinement in complex data models is difficult due to lack of a way of defining constraints, which can be progressively maintained over increasingly detailed refinements. Category theory provides a way of stating wide scale constraints. These constraints lead to a set of design guidelines, which maintain the wide scale constraints under increasing detail. Previous methods of refinement are essentially local, and the proposed method does not interfere very much with these local methods. The result is particularly applicable to semantic web applications, where ontologies provide systems of more or less abstract constraints on systems, which must be implemented and therefore refined by participating systems. With the approach of this paper, the concept of committing to an ontology carries much more force. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.