Interpreting Judgements using Knowledge Representation Methods and Computational Models of Argument

The goal of the present research is to define a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling, by using knowledge extracted from text, metadata, and rules, while maintaining a strong text-to-knowledge morphism between legal text and legal concepts, in order to fill the gap between legal document and its semantics. The framework is composed of four different models that make use of standard languages from the Semantic Web stack of technologies: a document metadata structure, modelling the main parts of a judgement, and creating a bridge between a text and its semantic annotations of legal concepts; a legal core ontology, modelling abstract legal concepts and institutions contained in a rule of law; a legal domain ontology, modelling the main legal concepts in a specific domain concerned by case-law; an argumentation system, modelling the structure of argumentation. The input to the framework includes metadata associated with judicial concepts, and an ontology library representing the structure of case-law. The research relies on the previous efforts of the community in the field of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain, in order to apply the theory to a set of real legal documents, stressing the OWL axioms definitions as much as possible in order to enable them to provide a semantically powerful representation of the legal document and a solid ground for an argumentation system using a defeasible subset of predicate logics. It appears that some new features of OWL2 unlock useful reasoning features for legal knowledge, especially if combined with defeasible rules and argumentation schemes. The main task is thus to formalize legal concepts and argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, with the following requirement: to check, validate and reuse the discourse of a judge - and the argumentation he produces - as expressed by the judicial text.

DEVELOPING A METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING FUNCTIONAL DISCREPANCIES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Currently more than half of Electronic Health Record (EHR) projects fail. Most of these failures are not due to flawed technology, but rather due to the lack of systematic considerations of human issues. Among the barriers for EHR adoption, function mismatching among users, activities, and systems is a major area that has not been systematically addressed from a human-centered perspective. A theoretical framework called Functional Framework was developed for identifying and reducing functional discrepancies among users, activities, and systems. The Functional Framework is composed of three models – the User Model, the Designer Model, and the Activity Model. The User Model was developed by conducting a survey (N = 32) that identified the functions needed and desired from the user’s perspective. The Designer Model was developed by conducting a systemic review of an Electronic Dental Record (EDR) and its functions. The Activity Model was developed using an ethnographic method called shadowing where EDR users (5 dentists, 5 dental assistants, 5 administrative personnel) were followed quietly and observed for their activities. These three models were combined to form a unified model. From the unified model the work domain ontology was developed by asking users to rate the functions (a total of 190 functions) in the unified model along the dimensions of frequency and criticality in a survey. The functional discrepancies, as indicated by the regions of the Venn diagrams formed by the three models, were consistent with the survey results, especially with user satisfaction. The survey for the Functional Framework indicated the preference of one system over the other (R=0.895). The results of this project showed that the Functional Framework provides a systematic method for identifying, evaluating, and reducing functional discrepancies among users, systems, and activities. Limitations and generalizability of the Functional Framework were discussed.

Building ontologies from folksonomies and linked data: Data structures and Algorithms

We present the data structures and algorithms used in the approach for building domain ontologies from folksonomies and linked data. In this approach we extracts domain terms from folksonomies and enrich them with semantic information from the Linked Open Data cloud. As a result, we obtain a domain ontology that combines the emergent knowledge of social tagging systems with formal knowledge from Ontologies.

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).

Methodological guidelines for reusing general ontologies

Currently, there is a great deal of well-founded explicit knowledge formalizing general notions, such as time concepts and the part_of relation. Yet, it is often the case that instead of reusing ontologies that implement such notions (the so-called general ontologies), engineers create procedural programs that implicitly implement this knowledge. They do not save time and code by reusing explicit knowledge, and devote effort to solve problems that other people have already adequately solved. Consequently, we have developed a methodology that helps engineers to: (a) identify the type of general ontology to be reused; (b) find out which axioms and definitions should be reused; (c) make a decision, using formal concept analysis, on what general ontology is going to be reused; and (d) adapt and integrate the selected general ontology in the domain ontology to be developed. To illustrate our approach we have employed use-cases. For each use case, we provide a set of heuristics with examples. Each of these heuristics has been tested in either OWL or Prolog. Our methodology has been applied to develop a pharmaceutical product ontology. Additionally, we have carried out a controlled experiment with graduated students doing a MCs in Artificial Intelligence. This experiment has yielded some interesting findings concerning what kind of features the future extensions of the methodology should have.

Knowledge-Based Approach to Document Analysis

The paper presents an approach to extraction of facts from texts of documents. This approach is based on using knowledge about the subject domain, specialized dictionary and the schemes of facts that describe fact structures taking into consideration both semantic and syntactic compatibility of elements of facts. Actually extracted facts combine into one structure the dictionary lexical objects found in the text and match them against concepts of subject domain ontology.

Processing of Knowledge about Optimization of Classical Optimizing Transformations

The article describes the structure of an ontology model for Optimization of a sequential program. The components of an intellectual modeling system for program optimization are described. The functions of the intellectual modeling system are defined.

Upgradable Tree Levels Editor of Metaontologies, Ontologies and Knowledge for a Chemistry

* This paper has supported by Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the project 06-III-A-01-005 and Russian Fund of Fundamental Investigation, the project 06-07-89071-a

Una aproximación para la descripción semántica de requisitos para categorización docentes de investigadores Ecuatorianos

La nueva generación de la Web, la Web Semántica, plantea potenciales oportunidades para dotar de significado a los contenidos Web. Las ontologías constituyen una de las principales herramientas para especificar explícitamente los conceptos de un dominio concreto, sus propiedades y sus relaciones; de manera que la información se publique en formatos que sean inteligibles automáticamente por agentes máquinas que pueden localizar y gestionar de forma precisa la información. En este trabajo se presenta un marco de trabajo para una red de ontologías para representar conceptos, atributos, operaciones y restricciones, en relación a los ítems curriculares que se usan en procesos nacionales de categorización de docentes universitarios ecuatorianos. En una primera parte se muestra el contexto del dominio, trabajos relacionados, luego se describe el proceso seguido, la abstracción del modelo ontológico y finalmente se presenta una ontología. Es una ontología de dominio debido a que proporciona el significado de los conceptos y sus relaciones dentro del dominio de ítems curriculares producidos por docentes universitarios, que son requisitos de los proceso de categorización docente universitaria en Ecuador.

Adjectival semantics and the legal domain: A study for ontology improvement

This paper carries out a descriptive study on Portuguese adjectives. Our aim is to describe the semantics of the legal domain adjectives in order to construct an ontology which may improve Information Retrieval Systems. For this, we present an approach based on valency and semantic relations. The ontology proposed here is a first step aiming to build a legal ontology based on top-level concepts. © AEPIA.

Ontology-driven legal support-system in air transport passenger domain

This paper aims to present a preliminary version of asupport-system in the air transport passenger domain. This system relies upon an underlying on-tological structure representing a normative framework to facilitatethe provision of contextualized relevant legal information.This information includes the pas-senger's rights and itenhances self-litigation and the decision-making process of passengers.Our contribution is based in the attempt of rendering a user-centric-legal informationgroundedon case-scenarios of the most pronounced incidents related to the consumer complaints in the EU.A number ofadvantages with re-spect to the current state-of-the-art services are discussed and a case study illu-strates a possible technological application.

Enhancing the Expressiveness of the Bunge-Wand-Weber Ontology

In practical terms, conceptual modeling is at the core of systems analysis and design. The plurality of modeling methods available has however been regarded as detrimental, and as a strong indication that a common view or theoretical grounding of modeling is wanting. This theoretical foundation must universally address all potential matters to be represented in a model, which consequently suggested ontology as the point of departure for theory development. The Bunge–Wand–Weber (BWW) ontology has become a widely accepted modeling theory. Its application has simultaneously led to the recognition that, although suitable as a meta-model, the BWW ontology needs to be enhanced regarding its expressiveness in empirical domains. In this paper, a first step in this direction has been made by revisiting BUNGE’s ontology, and by proposing the integration of a “hierarchy of systems” in the BWW ontology for accommodating domain specific conceptualizations.

Building an ontology and process architecture for engineering asset management

Historically, asset management focused primarily on the reliability and maintainability of assets; organisations have since then accepted the notion that a much larger array of processes govern the life and use of an asset. With this, asset management’s new paradigm seeks a holistic, multi-disciplinary approach to the management of physical assets. A growing number of organisations now seek to develop integrated asset management frameworks and bodies of knowledge. This research seeks to complement existing outputs of the mentioned organisations through the development of an asset management ontology. Ontologies define a common vocabulary for both researchers and practitioners who need to share information in a chosen domain. A by-product of ontology development is the realisation of a process architecture, of which there is also no evidence in published literature. To develop the ontology and subsequent asset management process architecture, a standard knowledge-engineering methodology is followed. This involves text analysis, definition and classification of terms and visualisation through an appropriate tool (in this case, the Protégé application was used). The result of this research is the first attempt at developing an asset management ontology and process architecture.

Ontology-based image annotation

With regard to the long-standing problem of the semantic gap between low-level image features and high-level human knowledge, the image retrieval community has recently shifted its emphasis from low-level features analysis to high-level image semantics extrac- tion. User studies reveal that users tend to seek information using high-level semantics. Therefore, image semantics extraction is of great importance to content-based image retrieval because it allows the users to freely express what images they want. Semantic content annotation is the basis for semantic content retrieval. The aim of image anno- tation is to automatically obtain keywords that can be used to represent the content of images. The major research challenges in image semantic annotation are: what is the basic unit of semantic representation? how can the semantic unit be linked to high-level image knowledge? how can the contextual information be stored and utilized for image annotation? In this thesis, the Semantic Web technology (i.e. ontology) is introduced to the image semantic annotation problem. Semantic Web, the next generation web, aims at mak- ing the content of whatever type of media not only understandable to humans but also to machines. Due to the large amounts of multimedia data prevalent on the Web, re- searchers and industries are beginning to pay more attention to the Multimedia Semantic Web. The Semantic Web technology provides a new opportunity for multimedia-based applications, but the research in this area is still in its infancy. Whether ontology can be used to improve image annotation and how to best use ontology in semantic repre- sentation and extraction is still a worth-while investigation. This thesis deals with the problem of image semantic annotation using ontology and machine learning techniques in four phases as below. 1) Salient object extraction. A salient object servers as the basic unit in image semantic extraction as it captures the common visual property of the objects. Image segmen- tation is often used as the �rst step for detecting salient objects, but most segmenta- tion algorithms often fail to generate meaningful regions due to over-segmentation and under-segmentation. We develop a new salient object detection algorithm by combining multiple homogeneity criteria in a region merging framework. 2) Ontology construction. Since real-world objects tend to exist in a context within their environment, contextual information has been increasingly used for improving object recognition. In the ontology construction phase, visual-contextual ontologies are built from a large set of fully segmented and annotated images. The ontologies are composed of several types of concepts (i.e. mid-level and high-level concepts), and domain contextual knowledge. The visual-contextual ontologies stand as a user-friendly interface between low-level features and high-level concepts. 3) Image objects annotation. In this phase, each object is labelled with a mid-level concept in ontologies. First, a set of candidate labels are obtained by training Support Vectors Machines with features extracted from salient objects. After that, contextual knowledge contained in ontologies is used to obtain the �nal labels by removing the ambiguity concepts. 4) Scene semantic annotation. The scene semantic extraction phase is to get the scene type by using both mid-level concepts and domain contextual knowledge in ontologies. Domain contextual knowledge is used to create scene con�guration that describes which objects co-exist with which scene type more frequently. The scene con�guration is represented in a probabilistic graph model, and probabilistic inference is employed to calculate the scene type given an annotated image. To evaluate the proposed methods, a series of experiments have been conducted in a large set of fully annotated outdoor scene images. These include a subset of the Corel database, a subset of the LabelMe dataset, the evaluation dataset of localized semantics in images, the spatial context evaluation dataset, and the segmented and annotated IAPR TC-12 benchmark.