The Mycoplasma conjunctivae genome sequencing, annotation and analysis

BACKGROUND: The mollicute Mycoplasma conjunctivae is the etiological agent leading to infectious keratoconjunctivitis (IKC) in domestic sheep and wild caprinae. Although this pathogen is relatively benign for domestic animals treated by antibiotics, it can lead wild animals to blindness and death. This is a major cause of death in the protected species in the Alps (e.g., Capra ibex, Rupicapra rupicapra). METHODS: The genome was sequenced using a combined technique of GS-FLX (454) and Sanger sequencing, and annotated by an automatic pipeline that we designed using several tools interconnected via PERL scripts. The resulting annotations are stored in a MySQL database. RESULTS: The annotated sequence is deposited in the EMBL database (FM864216) and uploaded into the mollicutes database MolliGen http://cbi.labri.fr/outils/molligen/ allowing for comparative genomics. CONCLUSION: We show that our automatic pipeline allows for annotating a complete mycoplasma genome and present several examples of analysis in search for biological targets (e.g., pathogenic proteins).

Next-generation tissue microarray (ngTMA) increases the quality of biomarker studies: an example using CD3, CD8, and CD45RO in the tumor microenvironment of six different solid tumor types

Background Tissue microarray (TMA) technology revolutionized the investigation of potential biomarkers from paraffin-embedded tissues. However, conventional TMA construction is laborious, time-consuming and imprecise. Next-generation tissue microarrays (ngTMA) combine histological expertise with digital pathology and automated tissue microarraying. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of ngTMA for the investigation of biomarkers within the tumor microenvironment (tumor center and invasion front) of six tumor types, using CD3, CD8 and CD45RO as an example. Methods Ten cases each of malignant melanoma, lung, breast, gastric, prostate and colorectal cancers were reviewed. The most representative H&E slide was scanned and uploaded onto a digital slide management platform. Slides were viewed and seven TMA annotations of 1 mm in diameter were placed directly onto the digital slide. Different colors were used to identify the exact regions in normal tissue (n = 1), tumor center (n = 2), tumor front (n = 2), and tumor microenvironment at invasion front (n = 2) for subsequent punching. Donor blocks were loaded into an automated tissue microarrayer. Images of the donor block were superimposed with annotated digital slides. Exact annotated regions were punched out of each donor block and transferred into a TMA block. 420 tissue cores created two ngTMA blocks. H&E staining and immunohistochemistry for CD3, CD8 and CD45RO were performed. Results All 60 slides were scanned automatically (total time < 10 hours), uploaded and viewed. Annotation time was 1 hour. The 60 donor blocks were loaded into the tissue microarrayer, simultaneously. Alignment of donor block images and digital slides was possible in less than 2 minutes/case. Automated punching of tissue cores and transfer took 12 seconds/core. Total ngTMA construction time was 1.4 hours. Stains for H&E and CD3, CD8 and CD45RO highlighted the precision with which ngTMA could capture regions of tumor-stroma interaction of each cancer and the T-lymphocytic immune reaction within the tumor microenvironment. Conclusion Based on a manual selection criteria, ngTMA is able to precisely capture histological zones or cell types of interest in a precise and accurate way, aiding the pathological study of the tumor microenvironment. This approach would be advantageous for visualizing proteins, DNA, mRNA and microRNAs in specific cell types using in situ hybridization techniques.

Statistical model-based segmentation of the proximal femur in digital antero-posterior (AP) pelvic radiographs.

PURPOSE    Segmentation of the proximal femur in digital antero-posterior (AP) pelvic radiographs is required to create a three-dimensional model of the hip joint for use in planning and treatment. However, manually extracting the femoral contour is tedious and prone to subjective bias, while automatic segmentation must accommodate poor image quality, anatomical structure overlap, and femur deformity. A new method was developed for femur segmentation in AP pelvic radiographs. METHODS    Using manual annotations on 100 AP pelvic radiographs, a statistical shape model (SSM) and a statistical appearance model (SAM) of the femur contour were constructed. The SSM and SAM were used to segment new AP pelvic radiographs with a three-stage approach. At initialization, the mean SSM model is coarsely registered to the femur in the AP radiograph through a scaled rigid registration. Mahalanobis distance defined on the SAM is employed as the search criteria for each annotated suggested landmark location. Dynamic programming was used to eliminate ambiguities. After all landmarks are assigned, a regularized non-rigid registration method deforms the current mean shape of SSM to produce a new segmentation of proximal femur. The second and third stages are iteratively executed to convergence. RESULTS    A set of 100 clinical AP pelvic radiographs (not used for training) were evaluated. The mean segmentation error was [Formula: see text], requiring [Formula: see text] s per case when implemented with Matlab. The influence of the initialization on segmentation results was tested by six clinicians, demonstrating no significance difference. CONCLUSIONS    A fast, robust and accurate method for femur segmentation in digital AP pelvic radiographs was developed by combining SSM and SAM with dynamic programming. This method can be extended to segmentation of other bony structures such as the pelvis.

NETWORK TOPOLOGY IN HUMAN PROTEIN INTERACTION DATA PREDICTS FUNCTIONAL ASSOCIATION

High-throughput assays, such as yeast two-hybrid system, have generated a huge amount of protein-protein interaction (PPI) data in the past decade. This tremendously increases the need for developing reliable methods to systematically and automatically suggest protein functions and relationships between them. With the available PPI data, it is now possible to study the functions and relationships in the context of a large-scale network. To data, several network-based schemes have been provided to effectively annotate protein functions on a large scale. However, due to those inherent noises in high-throughput data generation, new methods and algorithms should be developed to increase the reliability of functional annotations. Previous work in a yeast PPI network (Samanta and Liang, 2003) has shown that the local connection topology, particularly for two proteins sharing an unusually large number of neighbors, can predict functional associations between proteins, and hence suggest their functions. One advantage of the work is that their algorithm is not sensitive to noises (false positives) in high-throughput PPI data. In this study, we improved their prediction scheme by developing a new algorithm and new methods which we applied on a human PPI network to make a genome-wide functional inference. We used the new algorithm to measure and reduce the influence of hub proteins on detecting functionally associated proteins. We used the annotations of the Gene Ontology (GO) and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) as independent and unbiased benchmarks to evaluate our algorithms and methods within the human PPI network. We showed that, compared with the previous work from Samanta and Liang, our algorithm and methods developed in this study improved the overall quality of functional inferences for human proteins. By applying the algorithms to the human PPI network, we obtained 4,233 significant functional associations among 1,754 proteins. Further comparisons of their KEGG and GO annotations allowed us to assign 466 KEGG pathway annotations to 274 proteins and 123 GO annotations to 114 proteins with estimated false discovery rates of <21% for KEGG and <30% for GO. We clustered 1,729 proteins by their functional associations and made pathway analysis to identify several subclusters that are highly enriched in certain signaling pathways. Particularly, we performed a detailed analysis on a subcluster enriched in the transforming growth factor β signaling pathway (P<10-50) which is important in cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Analysis of another four subclusters also suggested potential new players in six signaling pathways worthy of further experimental investigations. Our study gives clear insight into the common neighbor-based prediction scheme and provides a reliable method for large-scale functional annotations in this post-genomic era.

Individual Video Training iVT and Annotating Academic Videos AAV: two complementing technologies

Individual Video Training iVT and Annotating Academic Videos AAV: two complementing technologies 1. Recording communication skills training sessions and reviewing them by oneself, with peers, and with tutors has become standard in medical education. Increasing numbers of students paired with restrictions of financial and human resources create a big obstacle to this important teaching method. 2. Everybody who wants to increase efficiency and effectiveness of communication training can get new ideas from our technical solution. 3. Our goal was to increase the effectiveness of communication skills training by supporting self, peer and tutor assessment over the Internet. Two technologies of SWITCH, the national foundation to support IT solutions for Swiss universities, came handy for our project. The first is the authentication and authorization infrastructure providing all Swiss students with a nationwide single login. The second is SWITCHcast which allows automated recording, upload and publication of videos in the Internet. Students start the recording system by entering their single login. This automatically links the video with their password. Within a few hours, they find their video password protected on the Internet. They now can give access to peers and tutors. Additionally, an annotation interface was developed. This software has free text as well as checklist annotations capabilities. Tutors as well as students can create checklists. Tutor’s checklists are not editable by students. Annotations are linked to tracks. Tracks can be private or public. Public means visible to all who have access to the video. Annotation data can be exported for statistical evaluation. 4. The system was well received by students and tutors. Big numbers of videos were processed simultaneously without any problems. 5. iVT http://www.switch.ch/aaa/projects/detail/UNIBE.7 AAV http://www.switch.ch/aaa/projects/detail/ETHZ.9

A next-generation tissue microarray (ngTMA) protocol for biomarker studies

Biomarker research relies on tissue microarrays (TMA). TMAs are produced by repeated transfer of small tissue cores from a 'donor' block into a 'recipient' block and then used for a variety of biomarker applications. The construction of conventional TMAs is labor intensive, imprecise, and time-consuming. Here, a protocol using next-generation Tissue Microarrays (ngTMA) is outlined. ngTMA is based on TMA planning and design, digital pathology, and automated tissue microarraying. The protocol is illustrated using an example of 134 metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Histological, statistical and logistical aspects are considered, such as the tissue type, specific histological regions, and cell types for inclusion in the TMA, the number of tissue spots, sample size, statistical analysis, and number of TMA copies. Histological slides for each patient are scanned and uploaded onto a web-based digital platform. There, they are viewed and annotated (marked) using a 0.6-2.0 mm diameter tool, multiple times using various colors to distinguish tissue areas. Donor blocks and 12 'recipient' blocks are loaded into the instrument. Digital slides are retrieved and matched to donor block images. Repeated arraying of annotated regions is automatically performed resulting in an ngTMA. In this example, six ngTMAs are planned containing six different tissue types/histological zones. Two copies of the ngTMAs are desired. Three to four slides for each patient are scanned; 3 scan runs are necessary and performed overnight. All slides are annotated; different colors are used to represent the different tissues/zones, namely tumor center, invasion front, tumor/stroma, lymph node metastases, liver metastases, and normal tissue. 17 annotations/case are made; time for annotation is 2-3 min/case. 12 ngTMAs are produced containing 4,556 spots. Arraying time is 15-20 hr. Due to its precision, flexibility and speed, ngTMA is a powerful tool to further improve the quality of TMAs used in clinical and translational research.

The Multimodal Brain TumorImage Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS)

In this paper we report the set-up and results of the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Benchmark (BRATS) organized in conjunction with the MICCAI 2012 and 2013 conferences. Twenty state-of-the-art tumor segmentation algorithms were applied to a set of 65 multi-contrast MR scans of low- and high-grade glioma patients - manually annotated by up to four raters - and to 65 comparable scans generated using tumor image simulation software. Quantitative evaluations revealed considerable disagreement between the human raters in segmenting various tumor sub-regions (Dice scores in the range 74-85%), illustrating the difficulty of this task. We found that different algorithms worked best for different sub-regions (reaching performance comparable to human inter-rater variability), but that no single algorithm ranked in the top for all subregions simultaneously. Fusing several good algorithms using a hierarchical majority vote yielded segmentations that consistently ranked above all individual algorithms, indicating remaining opportunities for further methodological improvements. The BRATS image data and manual annotations continue to be publicly available through an online evaluation system as an ongoing benchmarking resource.

Bird observations in the Weddell Sea

Pelagic distribution of birds at the Weddell Sea. The essay contains the notes taken of the observation of birds at the Weddell Sea (24 species). The observations were made on two expeditions in the southern summer of 1955/56 and 1959/60 on board the Argentine icebreaker "General San Martin". After an introduction dealing with the Weddell Sea and the methods of research the species are represented together with the territory of observation and supplementary annotations. Two tables give a survey of the birds seen on each day of the expedition and in the territories they sailed through.

Total V9 rDNA information organized at the OTU level

The present data set provides a tab separated text file compressed in a zip archive. The file includes metadata for each TaraOceans V9 rDNA OTU including the following fields: md5sum = identifier of the representative (most abundant) sequence of the swarm; cid = identifier of the OTU; totab = total abundance of barcodes in this OTU; TARA_xxx = number of occurrences of barcodes in this OTU in each of the 334 samples;rtotab = total abundance of the representative barcode; pid = percentage identity of the representative barcode to the closest reference sequence from V9_PR2; lineage = taxonomic path assigned to the representative barcode ; refs = best hit reference sequence(s) with respect to the representative barcode ; taxogroup = high-taxonomic level assignation of the representative barcode. The file also includes three categories of functional annotations: (1) Chloroplast: yes, presence of permanent chloroplast; no, absence of permanent chloroplast ; NA, undetermined. (2) Symbiont (small partner): parasite, the species is a parasite; commensal, the species is a commensal; mutualist, the species is a mutualist symbiont, most often a microalgal taxon involved in photosymbiosis; no the species is not involved in a symbiosis as small partner; NA, undetermined. (3) Symbiont (host): photo, the host species relies on a mutualistic microalgal photosymbiont to survive (obligatory photosymbiosis); photo_falc, same as photo, but facultative relationship; photo_klep, the host species maintains chloroplasts from microalgal prey(s) to survive; photo_klep_falc, same as photo_klep, but facultative; Nfix, the host species must interact with a mutualistic symbiont providing N2 fixation to survive; Nfix_falc, same as Nfix, but facultative; no, the species is not involved in any mutualistic symbioses; NA, undetermined.

DBpedia spotlight: shedding light on the web of documents

Interlinking text documents with Linked Open Data enables the Web of Data to be used as background knowledge within document-oriented applications such as search and faceted browsing. As a step towards interconnecting the Web of Documents with the Web of Data, we developed DBpedia Spotlight, a system for automatically annotating text documents with DBpedia URIs. DBpedia Spotlight allows users to congure the annotations to their specic needs through the DBpedia Ontology and quality measures such as prominence, topical pertinence, contextual ambiguity and disambiguation condence. We compare our approach with the state of the art in disambiguation, and evaluate our results in light of three baselines and six publicly available annotation systems, demonstrating the competitiveness of our system. DBpedia Spotlight is shared as open source and deployed as a Web Service freely available for public use.

EuroPineDB: a high-coverage web database for maritime pine transcriptome

Pinus pinaster is an economically and ecologically important species that is becoming a woody gymnosperm model. Its enormous genome size makes whole-genome sequencing approaches are hard to apply. Therefore, the expressed portion of the genome has to be characterised and the results and annotations have to be stored in dedicated databases.

DBpedia Spotlight: Shedding Light on the Web of Documents

Interlinking text documents with Linked Open Data enables the Web of Data to be used as background knowledge within document-oriented applications such as search and faceted browsing. As a step towards interconnecting the Web of Documents with the Web of Data, we developed DBpedia Spotlight, a system for automatically annotating text documents with DBpedia URIs. DBpedia Spotlight allows users to configure the annotations to their specific needs through the DBpedia Ontology and quality measures such as prominence, topical pertinence, contextual ambiguity and disambiguation confidence. We compare our approach with the state of the art in disambiguation, and evaluate our results in light of three baselines and six publicly available annotation systems, demonstrating the competitiveness of our system. DBpedia Spotlight is shared as open source and deployed as a Web Service freely available for public use.

Gi2MO: Interoperability, Linking and Filtering in Idea Management Systems

This thesis proposes how to apply the Semantic Web tech- nologies for the Idea Management Systems to deliver a solution to knowl- edge management and information over ow problems. Firstly, the aim is to present a model that introduces rich metadata annotations and their usage in the domain of Idea Management Systems. Furthermore, the the- sis shall investigate how to link innovation data with information from other systems and use it to categorize and lter out the most valuable elements. In addition, the thesis presents a Generic Idea and Innovation Management Ontology (Gi2MO) and aims to back its creation with a set of case studies followed by evaluations that prove how Semantic Web can work as tool to create new opportunities and leverage the contemporary Idea Management legacy systems into the next level.

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).

User-definable resource usage bounds analysis for java bytecode

Automatic cost analysis of programs has been traditionally concentrated on a reduced number of resources such as execution steps, time, or memory. However, the increasing relevance of analysis applications such as static debugging and/or certiflcation of user-level properties (including for mobile code) makes it interesting to develop analyses for resource notions that are actually application-dependent. This may include, for example, bytes sent or received by an application, number of files left open, number of SMSs sent or received, number of accesses to a datábase, money spent, energy consumption, etc. We present a fully automated analysis for inferring upper bounds on the usage that a Java bytecode program makes of a set of application programmer-deflnable resources. In our context, a resource is defined by programmer-provided annotations which state the basic consumption that certain program elements make of that resource. From these deflnitions our analysis derives functions which return an upper bound on the usage that the whole program (and individual blocks) make of that resource for any given set of input data sizes. The analysis proposed is independent of the particular resource. We also present some experimental results from a prototype implementation of the approach covering a signiflcant set of interesting resources.