A feasible theory of truth over combinatory algebra

We define an applicative theory of truth TPT which proves totality exactly for the polynomial time computable functions. TPT has natural and simple axioms since nearly all its truth axioms are standard for truth theories over an applicative framework. The only exception is the axiom dealing with the word predicate. The truth predicate can only reflect elementhood in the words for terms that have smaller length than a given word. This makes it possible to achieve the very low proof-theoretic strength. Truth induction can be allowed without any constraints. For these reasons the system TPT has the high expressive power one expects from truth theories. It allows embeddings of feasible systems of explicit mathematics and bounded arithmetic. The proof that the theory TPT is feasible is not easy. It is not possible to apply a standard realisation approach. For this reason we develop a new realisation approach whose realisation functions work on directed acyclic graphs. In this way, we can express and manipulate realisation information more efficiently.

Against Logically Possible World-Relativized Existence

The thesis that entities exist in, at, or in relation to logically possible worlds is criticized. The suggestion that actually nonexistent fictional characters might nevertheless exist in nonactual merely logically possible worlds runs afoul of the most general transworld identity requirements. An influential philosophical argument for the concept of world-relativized existence is examined in Alvin Plantinga’s formal development and explanation of modal semantic relations. Despite proposing an attractive unified semantics of alethic modality, Plantinga’s argument is rejected on formal grounds as supporting materially false actual existence assertions in the case of actually nonexistent objects in the framework of Plantinga’s own underlying classical predicate-quantificational logic.

Privacy Preserving Probabilistic Record Linkage (P3RL): a novel method for linking existing health-related data and maintaining participant confidentiality.

BACKGROUND Record linkage of existing individual health care data is an efficient way to answer important epidemiological research questions. Reuse of individual health-related data faces several problems: Either a unique personal identifier, like social security number, is not available or non-unique person identifiable information, like names, are privacy protected and cannot be accessed. A solution to protect privacy in probabilistic record linkages is to encrypt these sensitive information. Unfortunately, encrypted hash codes of two names differ completely if the plain names differ only by a single character. Therefore, standard encryption methods cannot be applied. To overcome these challenges, we developed the Privacy Preserving Probabilistic Record Linkage (P3RL) method. METHODS In this Privacy Preserving Probabilistic Record Linkage method we apply a three-party protocol, with two sites collecting individual data and an independent trusted linkage center as the third partner. Our method consists of three main steps: pre-processing, encryption and probabilistic record linkage. Data pre-processing and encryption are done at the sites by local personnel. To guarantee similar quality and format of variables and identical encryption procedure at each site, the linkage center generates semi-automated pre-processing and encryption templates. To retrieve information (i.e. data structure) for the creation of templates without ever accessing plain person identifiable information, we introduced a novel method of data masking. Sensitive string variables are encrypted using Bloom filters, which enables calculation of similarity coefficients. For date variables, we developed special encryption procedures to handle the most common date errors. The linkage center performs probabilistic record linkage with encrypted person identifiable information and plain non-sensitive variables. RESULTS In this paper we describe step by step how to link existing health-related data using encryption methods to preserve privacy of persons in the study. CONCLUSION Privacy Preserving Probabilistic Record linkage expands record linkage facilities in settings where a unique identifier is unavailable and/or regulations restrict access to the non-unique person identifiable information needed to link existing health-related data sets. Automated pre-processing and encryption fully protect sensitive information ensuring participant confidentiality. This method is suitable not just for epidemiological research but also for any setting with similar challenges.

Unfolding Feasible Arithmetic and Weak Truth

In this paper we continue Feferman’s unfolding program initiated in (Feferman, vol. 6 of Lecture Notes in Logic, 1996) which uses the concept of the unfolding U(S) of a schematic system S in order to describe those operations, predicates and principles concerning them, which are implicit in the acceptance of S. The program has been carried through for a schematic system of non-finitist arithmetic NFA in Feferman and Strahm (Ann Pure Appl Log, 104(1–3):75–96, 2000) and for a system FA (with and without Bar rule) in Feferman and Strahm (Rev Symb Log, 3(4):665–689, 2010). The present contribution elucidates the concept of unfolding for a basic schematic system FEA of feasible arithmetic. Apart from the operational unfolding U0(FEA) of FEA, we study two full unfolding notions, namely the predicate unfolding U(FEA) and a more general truth unfolding UT(FEA) of FEA, the latter making use of a truth predicate added to the language of the operational unfolding. The main results obtained are that the provably convergent functions on binary words for all three unfolding systems are precisely those being computable in polynomial time. The upper bound computations make essential use of a specific theory of truth TPT over combinatory logic, which has recently been introduced in Eberhard and Strahm (Bull Symb Log, 18(3):474–475, 2012) and Eberhard (A feasible theory of truth over combinatory logic, 2014) and whose involved proof-theoretic analysis is due to Eberhard (A feasible theory of truth over combinatory logic, 2014). The results of this paper were first announced in (Eberhard and Strahm, Bull Symb Log 18(3):474–475, 2012).

Inversion, Obviation, and Animacy in Native Languages of the Americas: Elements for a Cross-linguistic Survey

Native languages of the Americas whose predicate and clause structure reflect nominal hierarchies show an interesting range of structural diversity not only with respect to morphological makeup of their predicates and arguments but also with respect to the factors governing obviation status. The present article maps part of such diversity. The sample surveyed here includes languages with some sort of nonlocal (third person acting on third person) direction-marking system.

Privacy-preserving genomic testing in the clinic: a model using HIV treatment

PURPOSE The implementation of genomic-based medicine is hindered by unresolved questions regarding data privacy and delivery of interpreted results to health-care practitioners. We used DNA-based prediction of HIV-related outcomes as a model to explore critical issues in clinical genomics. METHODS We genotyped 4,149 markers in HIV-positive individuals. Variants allowed for prediction of 17 traits relevant to HIV medical care, inference of patient ancestry, and imputation of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types. Genetic data were processed under a privacy-preserving framework using homomorphic encryption, and clinical reports describing potentially actionable results were delivered to health-care providers. RESULTS A total of 230 patients were included in the study. We demonstrated the feasibility of encrypting a large number of genetic markers, inferring patient ancestry, computing monogenic and polygenic trait risks, and reporting results under privacy-preserving conditions. The average execution time of a multimarker test on encrypted data was 865 ms on a standard computer. The proportion of tests returning potentially actionable genetic results ranged from 0 to 54%. CONCLUSIONS The model of implementation presented herein informs on strategies to deliver genomic test results for clinical care. Data encryption to ensure privacy helps to build patient trust, a key requirement on the road to genomic-based medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 14 January 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.167.

Comparative Study of Digital Rights Management Systems for Music and Text Files

Digital Rights Management Systems (DRMS) are seen by content providers as the appropriate tool to, on the one hand, fight piracy and, on the other hand, monetize their assets. Although these systems claim to be very powerful and include multiple protection technologies, there is a lack of understanding about how such systems are currently being implemented and used by content providers. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it provides a theoretical basis through which we present shortly the seven core protection technologies of a DRMS. Second, this paper provides empirical evidence that the seven protection technologies outlined in the first section of this paper are the most commonly used technologies. It further evaluates to what extent these technologies are being used within the music and print industry. It concludes that the three main Technologies are encryption, password, and payment systems. However, there are some industry differences: the number of protection technologies used, the requirements for a DRMS, the required investment, or the perceived success of DRMS in fighting piracy.

The Application of Digital Rights Management Systems in the Music Industry - An Empirical Investigation

Technology advances in hardware, software and IP-networks such as the Internet or peer-to-peer file sharing systems are threatening the music business. The result has been an increasing amount of illegal copies available on-line as well as off-line. With the emergence of digital rights management systems (DRMS), the music industry seems to have found the appropriate tool to simultaneously fight piracy and to monetize their assets. Although these systems are very powerful and include multiple technologies to prevent piracy, it is as of yet unknown to what extent such systems are currently being used by content providers. We provide empirical analyses, results, and conclusions related to digital rights management systems and the protection of digital content in the music industry. It shows that most content providers are protecting their digital content through a variety of technologies such as passwords or encryption. However, each protection technology has its own specific goal, and not all prevent piracy. The majority of the respondents are satisfied with their current protection but want to reinforce it for the future, due to fear of increasing piracy. Surprisingly, although encryption is seen as the core DRM technology, only few companies are currently using it. Finally, half of the respondents do not believe in the success of DRMS and their ability to reduce piracy.

Safer sex choices among African-American college women

The purpose of this dissertation was to explore and describe the factors that influence the safer sex choices of African-American college women. The pandemic of HIV and the prevalence of other sexually transmitted diseases has disproportionately affected African-American females. As young women enter college they are faced with a myriad of choices. Unprotected sexual exploration is one choice that can lead to deadly consequences. This dissertation explores, through in-depth interviews, the factors associated with the decision to practice or not practice safe sex. ^ The first study describes the factors associated with increased sexual risk taking among African-American college women. Sexual risk taking or sex without a condom was found to be more likely when issues of self or partner pleasure were raised. Participants were also likely to have sexual intercourse without a condom if they desired a long term relationship with their partner. ^ The second study examined safe sex decision making processes among a group of African-American college women. Women were found to employ both emotional and philosophical strategies to determine their safe sex behavior. These strategies range from assessing a partner's physical capabilities and appearance to length of the dating relationship. ^ The third study explores the association between knowledge and risk perception as predictors for safer sex behaviors. Knowledge of HIV/AIDS and other STDs was not found to be a determinant of safer sex behavior. Perception of personal risk was also not highly correlated with consistent safer sex behavior. ^ These studies demonstrate the need for risk-based safer sex education and intervention programs. The current climate of knowledge-based program development insures that women will continue to predicate their decision to practice safer sex on their limited perception and understanding of the risks associated with unprotected sexual behavior. Further study into the emotional and philosophical determinants of sexual behavior is necessary for the realistic design of applicable and meaningful interventions. ^

Predicados, propiedades y condiciones de aplicación

En el presente artículo examinamos la relación entre predicados y propiedades. Por un lado, procuramos mostrar que la concepción de acuerdo con la cual la función primaria de predicados es la de denotar propiedades es insatisfactoria. Por otro lado, distinguimos entre el criterio de uso de predicados y su condición de aplicación, i. e. la condición que un objeto debe satisfacer para que sea correcto aplicar el predicado a él. Defendemos que propiedades se relacionan con predicados en la medida en que la condición de aplicación de un predicado es la instanciación de una propiedad

Predicados, propiedades y condiciones de aplicación

En el presente artículo examinamos la relación entre predicados y propiedades. Por un lado, procuramos mostrar que la concepción de acuerdo con la cual la función primaria de predicados es la de denotar propiedades es insatisfactoria. Por otro lado, distinguimos entre el criterio de uso de predicados y su condición de aplicación, i. e. la condición que un objeto debe satisfacer para que sea correcto aplicar el predicado a él. Defendemos que propiedades se relacionan con predicados en la medida en que la condición de aplicación de un predicado es la instanciación de una propiedad

Predicados, propiedades y condiciones de aplicación

En el presente artículo examinamos la relación entre predicados y propiedades. Por un lado, procuramos mostrar que la concepción de acuerdo con la cual la función primaria de predicados es la de denotar propiedades es insatisfactoria. Por otro lado, distinguimos entre el criterio de uso de predicados y su condición de aplicación, i. e. la condición que un objeto debe satisfacer para que sea correcto aplicar el predicado a él. Defendemos que propiedades se relacionan con predicados en la medida en que la condición de aplicación de un predicado es la instanciación de una propiedad

Relational and Allegorical Semantics for Constraint Logic Programming

El cálculo de relaciones binarias fue creado por De Morgan en 1860 para ser posteriormente desarrollado en gran medida por Peirce y Schröder. Tarski, Givant, Freyd y Scedrov demostraron que las álgebras relacionales son capaces de formalizar la lógica de primer orden, la lógica de orden superior así como la teoría de conjuntos. A partir de los resultados matemáticos de Tarski y Freyd, esta tesis desarrolla semánticas denotacionales y operacionales para la programación lógica con restricciones usando el álgebra relacional como base. La idea principal es la utilización del concepto de semántica ejecutable, semánticas cuya característica principal es el que la ejecución es posible utilizando el razonamiento estándar del universo semántico, este caso, razonamiento ecuacional. En el caso de este trabajo, se muestra que las álgebras relacionales distributivas con un operador de punto fijo capturan toda la teoría y metateoría estándar de la programación lógica con restricciones incluyendo los árboles utilizados en la búsqueda de demostraciones. La mayor parte de técnicas de optimización de programas, evaluación parcial e interpretación abstracta pueden ser llevadas a cabo utilizando las semánticas aquí presentadas. La demostración de la corrección de la implementación resulta extremadamente sencilla. En la primera parte de la tesis, un programa lógico con restricciones es traducido a un conjunto de términos relacionales. La interpretación estándar en la teoría de conjuntos de dichas relaciones coincide con la semántica estándar para CLP. Las consultas contra el programa traducido son llevadas a cabo mediante la reescritura de relaciones. Para concluir la primera parte, se demuestra la corrección y equivalencia operacional de esta nueva semántica, así como se define un algoritmo de unificación mediante la reescritura de relaciones. La segunda parte de la tesis desarrolla una semántica para la programación lógica con restricciones usando la teoría de alegorías—versión categórica del álgebra de relaciones—de Freyd. Para ello, se definen dos nuevos conceptos de Categoría Regular de Lawvere y _-Alegoría, en las cuales es posible interpretar un programa lógico. La ventaja fundamental que el enfoque categórico aporta es la definición de una máquina categórica que mejora e sistema de reescritura presentado en la primera parte. Gracias al uso de relaciones tabulares, la máquina modela la ejecución eficiente sin salir de un marco estrictamente formal. Utilizando la reescritura de diagramas, se define un algoritmo para el cálculo de pullbacks en Categorías Regulares de Lawvere. Los dominios de las tabulaciones aportan información sobre la utilización de memoria y variable libres, mientras que el estado compartido queda capturado por los diagramas. La especificación de la máquina induce la derivación formal de un juego de instrucciones eficiente. El marco categórico aporta otras importantes ventajas, como la posibilidad de incorporar tipos de datos algebraicos, funciones y otras extensiones a Prolog, a la vez que se conserva el carácter 100% declarativo de nuestra semántica. ABSTRACT The calculus of binary relations was introduced by De Morgan in 1860, to be greatly developed by Peirce and Schröder, as well as many others in the twentieth century. Using different formulations of relational structures, Tarski, Givant, Freyd, and Scedrov have shown how relation algebras can provide a variable-free way of formalizing first order logic, higher order logic and set theory, among other formal systems. Building on those mathematical results, we develop denotational and operational semantics for Constraint Logic Programming using relation algebra. The idea of executable semantics plays a fundamental role in this work, both as a philosophical and technical foundation. We call a semantics executable when program execution can be carried out using the regular theory and tools that define the semantic universe. Throughout this work, the use of pure algebraic reasoning is the basis of denotational and operational results, eliminating all the classical non-equational meta-theory associated to traditional semantics for Logic Programming. All algebraic reasoning, including execution, is performed in an algebraic way, to the point we could state that the denotational semantics of a CLP program is directly executable. Techniques like optimization, partial evaluation and abstract interpretation find a natural place in our algebraic models. Other properties, like correctness of the implementation or program transformation are easy to check, as they are carried out using instances of the general equational theory. In the first part of the work, we translate Constraint Logic Programs to binary relations in a modified version of the distributive relation algebras used by Tarski. Execution is carried out by a rewriting system. We prove adequacy and operational equivalence of the semantics. In the second part of the work, the relation algebraic approach is improved by using allegory theory, a categorical version of the algebra of relations developed by Freyd and Scedrov. The use of allegories lifts the semantics to typed relations, which capture the number of logical variables used by a predicate or program state in a declarative way. A logic program is interpreted in a _-allegory, which is in turn generated from a new notion of Regular Lawvere Category. As in the untyped case, program translation coincides with program interpretation. Thus, we develop a categorical machine directly from the semantics. The machine is based on relation composition, with a pullback calculation algorithm at its core. The algorithm is defined with the help of a notion of diagram rewriting. In this operational interpretation, types represent information about memory allocation and the execution mechanism is more efficient, thanks to the faithful representation of shared state by categorical projections. We finish the work by illustrating how the categorical semantics allows the incorporation into Prolog of constructs typical of Functional Programming, like abstract data types, and strict and lazy functions.

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 Predicate, Object> 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 Predicate, Object> 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 Predicate, Object> 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).

Abstract multiple specialization and its application to program parallelization.

Program specialization optimizes programs for known valúes of the input. It is often the case that the set of possible input valúes is unknown, or this set is infinite. However, a form of specialization can still be performed in such cases by means of abstract interpretation, specialization then being with respect to abstract valúes (substitutions), rather than concrete ones. We study the múltiple specialization of logic programs based on abstract interpretation. This involves in principie, and based on information from global analysis, generating several versions of a program predicate for different uses of such predicate, optimizing these versions, and, finally, producing a new, "multiply specialized" program. While múltiple specialization has received theoretical attention, little previous evidence exists on its practicality. In this paper we report on the incorporation of múltiple specialization in a parallelizing compiler and quantify its effects. A novel approach to the design and implementation of the specialization system is proposed. The resulting implementation techniques result in identical specializations to those of the best previously proposed techniques but require little or no modification of some existing abstract interpreters. Our results show that, using the proposed techniques, the resulting "abstract múltiple specialization" is indeed a relevant technique in practice. In particular, in the parallelizing compiler application, a good number of run-time tests are eliminated and invariants extracted automatically from loops, resulting generally in lower overheads and in several cases in increased speedups.