Limits of the Southern Ocean

The knowledge about processes concerning perception and understanding is of paramount importance for designing means of communication like maps and charts. This is especially the case, if one does not want to lose sight of the map-user and if map-design is to be orientated along the map-users needs and preferences in order to improve the cartographic product's usability. A scientific approach to visualization can help to achieve useable results. The insights achieved by such an approach can lead to modes of visualization that are superior to those, which have seemingly proved their value in praxis - so-called "bestpractices" -, concerning their utility and efficiency. This thesis shows this by using the example of visualizing the limits of bodies of waters in the Southern Ocean. After making some introductorily remarks on the chosen mode of problem-solution in chapter one, which simultaneously illustrate the flow of work while working on the problem, in chapter two the relevant information concerning the drawing of limits in the Southern Ocean is outlined. Chapter 3 builds the theoretical framework, which is a multidisciplinary approach to representation. This theoretical framework is based on "How Maps Work" by the American Cartographer MacEachren (1995/2004). His "scientific approach to visualization" is amended and adjusted by the knowledge gained from recent findings of the social sciences where necessary. So, the approach suggested in this thesis represents a synergy of psychology, sociology, semiotics, linguistics, communication theory and cartography. It follows the tradition of interdisciplinary research getting over the boundaries of a single scientific subject. The achieved holistic approach can help to improve the usability of cartographic products. It illustrates on the one hand those processes taking place while perceiving and recognizing cartographic information - so-called bottom-up-processes. On the other hand it illuminates the processes which happen during understanding this information in so-called top-down-processes. Bottom-up- and top-down-processes are interdependent and inseparably interrelated and therefore cannot be understood without each other. Regarding aspects of usability the approach suggested in this thesis strongly focuses on the map-user. This is the reason why the phenomenon of communication gains more weight than in MacEachren's map-centered approach. Because of this, in chapter 4 a holistic approach to communication is developed. This approach makes clear that only the map-user can evaluate the usability of a cartographic product. Only if he can extract the information relevant for him from the cartographical product, it is really useable. The concept of communication is well suited to conceive that. In case of the visualization of limits of bodies of water in the Southern Ocean, which is not complex enough to illustrate all results of the theoretical considerations, it is suggested to visualize the limits with red lines. This suggestion deviates from the commonly used mode of visualization. So, this thesis shows how theory is able to ameliorate praxis. Chapter 5 leads back to the task of fixing limits of the bodies of water in the area of concern. A convention by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) states that those limits should be drawn by using meridians, parallels, rhumb lines and bathymetric data. Based on the available bathymetric data both a representation and a process model are calculated, which should support the drawing of the limits. The quality of both models, which depends on the quality of the bathymetric data at hand, leads to the decision that the representation model is better suited to support the drawing of limits.

Nonparametric Message Passing Methods for Cooperative Localization and Tracking

The objective of this thesis is the development of cooperative localization and tracking algorithms using nonparametric message passing techniques. In contrast to the most well-known techniques, the goal is to estimate the posterior probability density function (PDF) of the position of each sensor. This problem can be solved using Bayesian approach, but it is intractable in general case. Nevertheless, the particle-based approximation (via nonparametric representation), and an appropriate factorization of the joint PDFs (using message passing methods), make Bayesian approach acceptable for inference in sensor networks. The well-known method for this problem, nonparametric belief propagation (NBP), can lead to inaccurate beliefs and possible non-convergence in loopy networks. Therefore, we propose four novel algorithms which alleviate these problems: nonparametric generalized belief propagation (NGBP) based on junction tree (NGBP-JT), NGBP based on pseudo-junction tree (NGBP-PJT), NBP based on spanning trees (NBP-ST), and uniformly-reweighted NBP (URW-NBP). We also extend NBP for cooperative localization in mobile networks. In contrast to the previous methods, we use an optional smoothing, provide a novel communication protocol, and increase the efficiency of the sampling techniques. Moreover, we propose novel algorithms for distributed tracking, in which the goal is to track the passive object which cannot locate itself. In particular, we develop distributed particle filtering (DPF) based on three asynchronous belief consensus (BC) algorithms: standard belief consensus (SBC), broadcast gossip (BG), and belief propagation (BP). Finally, the last part of this thesis includes the experimental analysis of some of the proposed algorithms, in which we found that the results based on real measurements are very similar with the results based on theoretical models.

Desing and Validation of a Light Inference System to Support Embedded Context Reasoning

Embedded context management in resource-constrained devices (e.g. mobile phones, autonomous sensors or smart objects) imposes special requirements in terms of lightness for data modelling and reasoning. In this paper, we explore the state-of-the-art on data representation and reasoning tools for embedded mobile reasoning and propose a light inference system (LIS) aiming at simplifying embedded inference processes offering a set of functionalities to avoid redundancy in context management operations. The system is part of a service-oriented mobile software framework, conceived to facilitate the creation of context-aware applications—it decouples sensor data acquisition and context processing from the application logic. LIS, composed of several modules, encapsulates existing lightweight tools for ontology data management and rule-based reasoning, and it is ready to run on Java-enabled handheld devices. Data management and reasoning processes are designed to handle a general ontology that enables communication among framework components. Both the applications running on top of the framework and the framework components themselves can configure the rule and query sets in order to retrieve the information they need from LIS. In order to test LIS features in a real application scenario, an ‘Activity Monitor’ has been designed and implemented: a personal health-persuasive application that provides feedback on the user’s lifestyle, combining data from physical and virtual sensors. In this case of use, LIS is used to timely evaluate the user’s activity level, to decide on the convenience of triggering notifications and to determine the best interface or channel to deliver these context-aware alerts.d

Proposal for the Management of temporal and semantic components of Geographic Information

This poster raises the issue of a research work oriented to the storage, retrieval, representation and analysis of dynamic GI, taking into account The ultimate objective is the modelling and representation of the dynamic nature of geographic features, establishing mechanisms to store geometries enriched with a temporal structure (regardless of space) and a set of semantic descriptors detailing and clarifying the nature of the represented features and their temporality. the semantic, the temporal and the spatiotemporal components. We intend to define a set of methods, rules and restrictions for the adequate integration of these components into the primary elements of the GI: theme, location, time [1]. We intend to establish and incorporate three new structures (layers) into the core of data storage by using mark-up languages: a semantictemporal structure, a geosemantic structure, and an incremental spatiotemporal structure. Thus, data would be provided with the capability of pinpointing and expressing their own basic and temporal characteristics, enabling them to interact each other according to their context, and their time and meaning relationships that could be eventually established

Proposal for the Management of temporal and semantic components of Geographic Information

This poster raises the issue of a research work oriented to the storage, retrieval, representation and analysis of dynamic GI, taking into account the semantic, the temporal and the spatiotemporal components. We intend to define a set of methods, rules and restrictions for the adequate integration of these components into the primary elements of the GI: theme, location, time [1]. We intend to establish and incorporate three new structures (layers) into the core of data storage by using mark-up languages: a semantictemporal structure, a geosemantic structure, and an incremental spatiotemporal structure. The ultimate objective is the modelling and representation of the dynamic nature of geographic features, establishing mechanisms to store geometries enriched with a temporal structure (regardless of space) and a set of semantic descriptors detailing and clarifying the nature of the represented features and their temporality. Thus, data would be provided with the capability of pinpointing and expressing their own basic and temporal characteristics, enabling them to interact each other according to their context, and their time and meaning relationships that could be eventually established

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).

Tools for Search Tree Visualization: The APT Tool

The control part of the execution of a constraint logic program can be conceptually shown as a search-tree, where nodes correspond to calis, and whose branches represent conjunctions and disjunctions. This tree represents the search space traversed by the program, and has also a direct relationship with the amount of work performed by the program. The nodes of the tree can be used to display information regarding the state and origin of instantiation of the variables involved in each cali. This depiction can also be used for the enumeration process. These are the features implemented in APT, a tool which runs constraint logic programs while depicting a (modified) search-tree, keeping at the same time information about the state of the variables at every moment in the execution. This information can be used to replay the execution at will, both forwards and backwards in time. These views can be abstracted when the size of the execution requires it. The search-tree view is used as a framework onto which constraint-level visualizations (such as those presented in the following chapter) can be attached.

A generic preprocessor for program validation and debugging

We present a generic preprocessor for combined static/dynamic validation and debugging of constraint logic programs. Passing programs through the preprocessor prior to execution allows detecting many bugs automatically. This is achieved by performing a repertoire of tests which range from simple syntactic checks to much more advanced checks based on static analysis of the program. Together with the program, the user may provide a series of assertions which trigger further automatic checking of the program. Such assertions are written using the assertion language presented in Chapter 2, which allows expressing a wide variety of properties. These properties extend beyond the predefined set which may be understandable by the available static analyzers and include properties defined by means of user programs. In addition to user-provided assertions, in each particular CLP system assertions may be available for predefined system predicates. Checking of both user-provided assertions and assertions for system predicates is attempted first at compile-time by comparing them with the results of static analysis. This may allow statically proving that the assertions hold (Le., they are validated) or that they are violated (and thus bugs detected). User-provided assertions (or parts of assertions) which cannot be statically proved ñor disproved are optionally translated into run-time tests. The implementation of the preprocessor is generic in that it can be easily customized to different CLP systems and dialects and in that it is designed to allow the integration of additional analyses in a simple way. We also report on two tools which are instances of the generic preprocessor: CiaoPP (for the Ciao Prolog system) and CHIPRE (for the CHIP CLP(FL>) system). The currently existing analyses include types, modes, non-failure, determinacy, and computational cost, and can treat modules separately, performing incremental analysis.

Debugging of constraint programs: The DiSCiPl methodology and tools

This introduction gives a general perspective of the debugging methodology and the tools developed in the ESPRIT IV project DiSCiPl Debugging Systems for Constraint Programming. It has been prepared by the editors of this volume by substantial rewriting of the DiSCiPl deliverable CP Debugging Tools [1]. This introduction is organised as follows. Section 1 outlines the DiSCiPl view of debugging, its associated debugging methodology, and motivates the kinds of tools proposed: the assertion based tools, the declarative diagnoser and the visualisation tools. Sections 2 through 4 provide a short presentation of the tools of each kind. Finally, Section 5 presents a summary of the tools developed in the project. This introduction gives only a general view of the DiSCiPl debugging methodology and tools. For details and for specific bibliographic referenees the reader is referred to the subsequent chapters.

Tools for constraint visualisation: The VIFID/TRIFID tool

Visualisation of program executions has been used in applications which include education and debugging. However, traditional visualisation techniques often fall short of expectations or are altogether inadequate for new programming paradigms, such as Constraint Logic Programming (CLP), whose declarative and operational semantics differ in some crucial ways from those of other paradigms. In particular, traditional ideas regarding the behaviour of data often cannot be lifted in a straightforward way to (C)LP from other families of programming languages. In this chapter we discuss techniques for visualising data evolution in CLP. We briefly review some previously proposed visualisation paradigms, and also propose a number of (to our knowledge) novel ones. The graphical representations have been chosen based on the perceived needs of a programmer trying to analyse the behaviour and characteristics of an execution. In particular, we concentrate on the representation of the run-time values of the variables, and the constraints among them. Given our interest in visualising large executions, we also pay attention to abstraction techniques, i.e., techniques which are intended to help in reducing the complexity of the visual information.

Design and Validation of a Light Inference System to Support Embedded Context Reasoning

Embedded context management in resource-constrained devices (e.g. mobile phones, autonomous sensors or smart objects) imposes special requirements in terms of lightness for data modelling and reasoning. In this paper, we explore the state-of-the-art on data representation and reasoning tools for embedded mobile reasoning and propose a light inference system (LIS) aiming at simplifying embedded inference processes offering a set of functionalities to avoid redundancy in context management operations. The system is part of a service-oriented mobile software framework, conceived to facilitate the creation of context-aware applications?it decouples sensor data acquisition and context processing from the application logic. LIS, composed of several modules, encapsulates existing lightweight tools for ontology data management and rule-based reasoning, and it is ready to run on Java-enabled handheld devices. Data management and reasoning processes are designed to handle a general ontology that enables communication among framework components. Both the applications running on top of the framework and the framework components themselves can configure the rule and query sets in order to retrieve the information they need from LIS. In order to test LIS features in a real application scenario, an ?Activity Monitor? has been designed and implemented: a personal health-persuasive application that provides feedback on the user?s lifestyle, combining data from physical and virtual sensors. In this case of use, LIS is used to timely evaluate the user?s activity level, to decide on the convenience of triggering notifications and to determine the best interface or channel to deliver these context-aware alerts.

Dysfunctional 3D model based on structural and neuropsychological information

Acquired brain injury (ABI) 1-2 refers to any brain damage occurring after birth. It usually causes certain damage to portions of the brain. ABI may result in a significant impairment of an individuals physical, cognitive and/or psychosocial functioning. The main causes are traumatic brain injury (TBI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and brain tumors. The main consequence of ABI is a dramatic change in the individuals daily life. This change involves a disruption of the family, a loss of future income capacity and an increase of lifetime cost. One of the main challenges in neurorehabilitation is to obtain a dysfunctional profile of each patient in order to personalize the treatment. This paper proposes a system to generate a patient s dysfunctional profile by integrating theoretical, structural and neuropsychological information on a 3D brain imaging-based model. The main goal of this dysfunctional profile is to help therapists design the most suitable treatment for each patient. At the same time, the results obtained are a source of clinical evidence to improve the accuracy and quality of our rehabilitation system. Figure 1 shows the diagram of the system. This system is composed of four main modules: image-based extraction of parameters, theoretical modeling, classification and co-registration and visualization module.

A formalism and method for representing and reasoning with process models authored by subject matter experts

Enabling Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to formulate knowledge without the intervention of Knowledge Engineers (KEs) requires providing SMEs with methods and tools that abstract the underlying knowledge representation and allow them to focus on modeling activities. Bridging the gap between SME-authored models and their representation is challenging, especially in the case of complex knowledge types like processes, where aspects like frame management, data, and control flow need to be addressed. In this paper, we describe how SME-authored process models can be provided with an operational semantics and grounded in a knowledge representation language like F-logic in order to support process-related reasoning. The main results of this work include a formalism for process representation and a mechanism for automatically translating process diagrams into executable code following such formalism. From all the process models authored by SMEs during evaluation 82% were well-formed, all of which executed correctly. Additionally, the two optimizations applied to the code generation mechanism produced a performance improvement at reasoning time of 25% and 30% with respect to the base case, respectively.

Residential self-selection and geographical scales in trip frequency.

Neighbourhood representation and scale used to measure the built environment have been treated in many ways. However, it is anything but clear what representation of neighbourhood is the most feasible in the existing literature. This paper presents an exhaustive analysis of built environment attributes through three spatial scales. For this purpose multiple data sources are integrated, and a set of 943 observations is analysed. This paper simultaneously analyses the influence of two methodological issues in the study of the relationship between built environment and travel behaviour: (1) detailed representation of neighbourhood by testing different spatial scales; (2) the influence of unobserved individual sensitivity to built environment attributes. The results show that different spatial scales of built environment attributes produce different results. Hence, it is important to produce local and regional transport measures, according to geographical scale. Additionally, the results show significant sensitivity to built environment attributes depending on place of residence. This effect, called residential sorting, acquires different magnitudes depending on the geographical scale used to measure the built environment attributes. Spatial scales risk to the stability of model results. Hence, transportation modellers and planners must take into account both effects of self-selection and spatial scales.

Language resources and linked data: a practical perspective

Recently, experts and practitioners in language resources have started recognizing the benefits of the linked data (LD) paradigm for the representation and exploitation of linguistic data on the Web. The adoption of the LD principles is leading to an emerging ecosystem of multilingual open resources that conform to the Linguistic Linked Open Data Cloud, in which datasets of linguistic data are interconnected and represented following common vocabularies, which facilitates linguistic information discovery, integration and access. In order to contribute to this initiative, this paper summarizes several key aspects of the representation of linguistic information as linked data from a practical perspective. The main goal of this document is to provide the basic ideas and tools for migrating language resources (lexicons, corpora, etc.) as LD on the Web and to develop some useful NLP tasks with them (e.g., word sense disambiguation). Such material was the basis of a tutorial imparted at the EKAW’14 conference, which is also reported in the paper.