Autorenwerkzeuge für digitale, multimediale und interaktive Lernbausteine im Web 2.0

Die vorliegende Forschungsarbeit siedelt sich im Dreieck der Erziehungswissenschaften, der Informatik und der Schulpraxis an und besitzt somit einen starken interdisziplinären Charakter. Aus Sicht der Erziehungswissenschaften handelt es sich um ein Forschungsprojekt aus den Bereichen E-Learning und Multimedia Learning und der Fragestellung nach geeigneten Informatiksystemen für die Herstellung und den Austausch von digitalen, multimedialen und interaktiven Lernbausteinen. Dazu wurden zunächst methodisch-didaktische Vorteile digitaler Lerninhalte gegenüber klassischen Medien wie Buch und Papier zusammengetragen und mögliche Potentiale im Zusammenhang mit neuen Web 2.0-Technologien aufgezeigt. Darauf aufbauend wurde für existierende Autorenwerkzeuge zur Herstellung digitaler Lernbausteine und bestehende Austauschplattformen analysiert, inwieweit diese bereits Web 2.0-Technologien unterstützen und nutzen. Aus Sicht der Informatik ergab sich aus der Analyse bestehender Systeme ein Anforderungsprofil für ein neues Autorenwerkzeug und eine neue Austauschplattform für digitale Lernbausteine. Das neue System wurde nach dem Ansatz des Design Science Research in einem iterativen Entwicklungsprozess in Form der Webapplikation LearningApps.org realisiert und stetig mit Lehrpersonen aus der Schulpraxis evaluiert. Bei der Entwicklung kamen aktuelle Web-Technologien zur Anwendung. Das Ergebnis der Forschungsarbeit ist ein produktives Informatiksystem, welches bereits von tausenden Nutzern in verschiedenen Ländern sowohl in Schulen als auch in der Wirtschaft eingesetzt wird. In einer empirischen Studie konnte das mit der Systementwicklung angestrebte Ziel, die Herstellung und den Austausch von digitalen Lernbausteinen zu vereinfachen, bestätigt werden. Aus Sicht der Schulpraxis liefert LearningApps.org einen Beitrag zur Methodenvielfalt und zur Nutzung von ICT im Unterricht. Die Ausrichtung des Werkzeugs auf mobile Endgeräte und 1:1-Computing entspricht dem allgemeinen Trend im Bildungswesen. Durch die Verknüpfung des Werkzeugs mit aktuellen Software-Entwicklungen zur Herstellung von digitalen Schulbüchern werden auch Lehrmittelverlage als Zielgruppe angesprochen.

Demo Abstract: Disseminating WMSN Data by Using Social Network and Web

For smart cities applications, a key requirement is to disseminate data collected from both scalar and multimedia wireless sensor networks to thousands of end-users. Furthermore, the information must be delivered to non-specialist users in a simple, intuitive and transparent manner. In this context, we present Sensor4Cities, a user-friendly tool that enables data dissemination to large audiences, by using using social networks, or/and web pages. The user can request and receive monitored information by using social networks, e.g., Twitter and Facebook, due to their popularity, user-friendly interfaces and easy dissemination. Additionally, the user can collect or share information from smart cities services, by using web pages, which also include a mobile version for smartphones. Finally, the tool could be configured to periodically monitor the environmental conditions, specific behaviors or abnormal events, and notify users in an asynchronous manner. Sensor4Cities improves the data delivery for individuals or groups of users of smart cities applications and encourages the development of new user-friendly services.

The Great Silk Alternative Multiple Co-Evolution of Web Loss and Sticky Hairs in Spiders

Spiders are the most important terrestrial predators among arthropods. Their ecological success is reflected by a high biodiversity and the conquest of nearly every terrestrial habitat. Spiders are closely associated with silk, a material, often seen to be responsible for their great ecological success and gaining high attention in life sciences. However, it is often overlooked that more than half of all Recent spider species have abandoned web building or never developed such an adaptation. These species must have found other, more economic solutions for prey capture and retention, compensating the higher energy costs of increased locomotion activity. Here we show that hairy adhesive pads (scopulae) are closely associated with the convergent evolution of a vagrant life style, resulting in highly diversified lineages of at least, equal importance as the derived web building taxa. Previous studies often highlighted the idea that scopulae have the primary function of assisting locomotion, neglecting the fact that only the distal most pads (claw tufts) are suitable for those purposes. The former observations, that scopulae are used in prey capture, are largely overlooked. Our results suggest the scopulae evolved as a substitute for silk in controlling prey and that the claw tufts are, in most cases, a secondary development. Evolutionary trends towards specialized claw tufts and their composition from a low number of enlarged setae to a dense array of slender ones, as well as the secondary loss of those pads are discussed further. Hypotheses about the origin of the adhesive setae and their diversification throughout evolution are provided.

A Restriction-Centered Theory of Reasoning and Computation to materialize a Web 3.0

Researchers suggest that personalization on the Semantic Web adds up to a Web 3.0 eventually. In this Web, personalized agents process and thus generate the biggest share of information rather than humans. In the sense of emergent semantics, which supplements traditional formal semantics of the Semantic Web, this is well conceivable. An emergent Semantic Web underlying fuzzy grassroots ontology can be accomplished through inducing knowledge from users' common parlance in mutual Web 2.0 interactions [1]. These ontologies can also be matched against existing Semantic Web ontologies, to create comprehensive top-level ontologies. On the Web, if augmented with information in the form of restrictions andassociated reliability (Z-numbers) [2], this collection of fuzzy ontologies constitutes an important basis for an implementation of Zadeh's restriction-centered theory of reasoning and computation (RRC) [3]. By considering real world's fuzziness, RRC differs from traditional approaches because it can handle restrictions described in natural language. A restriction is an answer to a question of the value of a variable such as the duration of an appointment. In addition to mathematically well-defined answers, RRC can likewise deal with unprecisiated answers as "about one hour." Inspired by mental functions, it constitutes an important basis to leverage present-day Web efforts to a natural Web 3.0. Based on natural language information, RRC may be accomplished with Z-number calculation to achieve a personalized Web reasoning and computation. Finally, through Web agents' understanding of natural language, they can react to humans more intuitively and thus generate and process information.

Towards an Emergent Semantic Web

In his in uential article about the evolution of the Web, Berners-Lee [1] envisions a Semantic Web in which humans and computers alike are capable of understanding and processing information. This vision is yet to materialize. The main obstacle for the Semantic Web vision is that in today's Web meaning is rooted most often not in formal semantics, but in natural language and, in the sense of semiology, emerges not before interpretation and processing. Yet, an automated form of interpretation and processing can be tackled by precisiating raw natural language. To do that, Web agents extract fuzzy grassroots ontologies through induction from existing Web content. Inductive fuzzy grassroots ontologies thus constitute organically evolved knowledge bases that resemble automated gradual thesauri, which allow precisiating natural language [2]. The Web agents' underlying dynamic, self-organizing, and best-effort induction, enable a sub-syntactical bottom up learning of semiotic associations. Thus, knowledge is induced from the users' natural use of language in mutual Web interactions, and stored in a gradual, thesauri-like lexical-world knowledge database as a top-level ontology, eventually allowing a form of computing with words [3]. Since when computing with words the objects of computation are words, phrases and propositions drawn from natural languages, it proves to be a practical notion to yield emergent semantics for the Semantic Web. In the end, an improved understanding by computers on the one hand should upgrade human- computer interaction on the Web, and, on the other hand allow an initial version of human- intelligence amplification through the Web.

3D Face Reconstruction from 2D Pictures: First Results of a Web-Based Computer Aided System for Aesthetic Procedures

The human face is a vital component of our identity and many people undergo medical aesthetics procedures in order to achieve an ideal or desired look. However, communication between physician and patient is fundamental to understand the patient’s wishes and to achieve the desired results. To date, most plastic surgeons rely on either “free hand” 2D drawings on picture printouts or computerized picture morphing. Alternatively, hardware dependent solutions allow facial shapes to be created and planned in 3D, but they are usually expensive or complex to handle. To offer a simple and hardware independent solution, we propose a web-based application that uses 3 standard 2D pictures to create a 3D representation of the patient’s face on which facial aesthetic procedures such as filling, skin clearing or rejuvenation, and rhinoplasty are planned in 3D. The proposed application couples a set of well-established methods together in a novel manner to optimize 3D reconstructions for clinical use. Face reconstructions performed with the application were evaluated by two plastic surgeons and also compared to ground truth data. Results showed the application can provide accurate 3D face representations to be used in clinics (within an average of 2 mm error) in less than 5 min.

The Web KnowARR Framework: Orchestrating Computational Intelligence with Graph Databases

This chapter presents fuzzy cognitive maps (FCM) as a vehicle for Web knowledge aggregation, representation, and reasoning. The corresponding Web KnowARR framework incorporates findings from fuzzy logic. To this end, a first emphasis is particularly on the Web KnowARR framework along with a stakeholder management use case to illustrate the framework’s usefulness as a second focal point. This management form is to help projects to acceptance and assertiveness where claims for company decisions are actively involved in the management process. Stakeholder maps visually (re-) present these claims. On one hand, they resort to non-public content and on the other they resort to content that is available to the public (mostly on the Web). The Semantic Web offers opportunities not only to present public content descriptively but also to show relationships. The proposed framework can serve as the basis for the public content of stakeholder maps.

Applying Fuzzy Ontologies to Implement the Social Semantic Web

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

Concepts of Bitemporal Database Theory and the Evolution of Web-Documents

A vast amount of temporal information is provided on the Web. Even though many facts expressed in documents are time-related, the temporal properties of Web presentations have not received much attention. In database research, temporal databases have become a mainstream topic in recent years. In Web documents, temporal data may exist as meta data in the header and as user-directed data in the body of a document. Whereas temporal data can easily be identified in the semi-structured meta data, it is more difficult to determine temporal data and its role in the body. We propose procedures for maintaining temporal integrity of Web pages and outline different approaches of applying bitemporal data concepts for Web documents. In particular, we regard desirable functionalities of Web repositories and other Web-related tools that may support the Webmasters in managing the temporal data of their Web documents. Some properties of a prototype environment are described.

Wartung 2.0: Nutzereinbindung zur Verbesserung von Webapplikationen als Komponente des Web Engineerings

In Anlehnung an Begriffe wie Web 2.0, an dem sich Internet-Nutzer mit unterschiedlichen Aktivitäten beteiligen können, und Enterprise 2.0 wird das Konzept der „Wartung 2.0“ entwickelt. Bei diesem Ansatz steht die Einbeziehung von Nutzergemeinschaften zur Verbesserung des Webauftritts und insbesondere von B2C-Systemen im Vordergrund. Wartung 2.0 ist eine Komponente des Web Engineerings und damit auch ein Element des von Lutz J. Heinrich vertretenen Konzepts des Information Engineerings

Evaluation of web-based resources for HIV+ youth

Given current rates of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in youth ages 15–24, comprehensive care is imperative in order to manage the virus and to prevent further transmission. In the past decade, the Internet has become an immensely popular source for information, including health information. Due to the increase in Internet use for this purpose, the assessment of the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of health information on the Internet is necessary since the information delivered may not be current or accurate. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and quality of websites containing health information and resources directed specifically towards HIV positive youth. Three general search terms, “HIV + teens”, “HIV teens info”, and “HIV infected teens,” were searched using the current top three search engines: Google, Yahoo!, and MSN/Bing. The first hundred hits of each search were then categorized by type of website. The examination of the search results yielded 7 sites that met the inclusion criteria. These sites were consequently evaluated on functionality and content using an adapted version of a pre-existing instrument. The functionality analysis revealed that no websites that contained self management information were dedicated specifically to HIV positive youth. The content analysis showed that the sites chosen for evaluation were mostly consistent with the guidelines provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. The most discussed topics in the sites included the importance of safer sexual behavior, HIV counseling, partner notification, safer behavior choices, such as condom use, and mental health. These results highlight the need for the development of accessible websites that contain accurate information targeting youth infected with HIV. This study provides a snapshot of the available web-based resources and health information for HIV positive youth, and is relevant for health educators, care providers, researchers, and others intervening with HIV+ youth. ^

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).