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).

Semantic technologies in idea management systems: a model for interoperability, linking and filtering

Abstract Idea Management Systems are web applications that implement the notion of open innovation though crowdsourcing. Typically, organizations use those kind of systems to connect to large communities in order to gather ideas for improvement of products or services. Originating from simple suggestion boxes, Idea Management Systems advanced beyond collecting ideas and aspire to be a knowledge management solution capable to select best ideas via collaborative as well as expert assessment methods. In practice, however, the contemporary systems still face a number of problems usually related to information overflow and recognizing questionable quality of submissions with reasonable time and effort allocation. This thesis focuses on idea assessment problem area and contributes a number of solutions that allow to filter, compare and evaluate ideas submitted into an Idea Management System. With respect to Idea Management System interoperability the thesis proposes theoretical model of Idea Life Cycle and formalizes it as the Gi2MO ontology which enables to go beyond the boundaries of a single system to compare and assess innovation in an organization wide or market wide context. Furthermore, based on the ontology, the thesis builds a number of solutions for improving idea assessment via: community opinion analysis (MARL), annotation of idea characteristics (Gi2MO Types) and study of idea relationships (Gi2MO Links). The main achievements of the thesis are: application of theoretical innovation models for practice of Idea Management to successfully recognize the differentiation between communities, opinion metrics and their recognition as a new tool for idea assessment, discovery of new relationship types between ideas and their impact on idea clustering. Finally, the thesis outcome is establishment of Gi2MO Project that serves as an incubator for Idea Management solutions and mature open-source software alternatives for the widely available commercial suites. From the academic point of view the project delivers resources to undertake experiments in the Idea Management Systems area and managed to become a forum that gathered a number of academic and industrial partners. Resumen Los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas son aplicaciones Web que implementan el concepto de innovación abierta con técnicas de crowdsourcing. Típicamente, las organizaciones utilizan ese tipo de sistemas para conectar con comunidades grandes y así recoger ideas sobre cómo mejorar productos o servicios. Los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas lian avanzado más allá de recoger simplemente ideas de buzones de sugerencias y ahora aspiran ser una solución de gestión de conocimiento capaz de seleccionar las mejores ideas por medio de técnicas colaborativas, así como métodos de evaluación llevados a cabo por expertos. Sin embargo, en la práctica, los sistemas contemporáneos todavía se enfrentan a una serie de problemas, que, por lo general, están relacionados con la sobrecarga de información y el reconocimiento de las ideas de dudosa calidad con la asignación de un tiempo y un esfuerzo razonables. Esta tesis se centra en el área de la evaluación de ideas y aporta una serie de soluciones que permiten filtrar, comparar y evaluar las ideas publicadas en un Sistema de Gestión de Ideas. Con respecto a la interoperabilidad de los Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas, la tesis propone un modelo teórico del Ciclo de Vida de la Idea y lo formaliza como la ontología Gi2MO que permite ir más allá de los límites de un sistema único para comparar y evaluar la innovación en un contexto amplio dentro de cualquier organización o mercado. Por otra parte, basado en la ontología, la tesis desarrolla una serie de soluciones para mejorar la evaluación de las ideas a través de: análisis de las opiniones de la comunidad (MARL), la anotación de las características de las ideas (Gi2MO Types) y el estudio de las relaciones de las ideas (Gi2MO Links). Los logros principales de la tesis son: la aplicación de los modelos teóricos de innovación para la práctica de Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas para reconocer las diferenciasentre comu¬nidades, métricas de opiniones de comunidad y su reconocimiento como una nueva herramienta para la evaluación de ideas, el descubrimiento de nuevos tipos de relaciones entre ideas y su impacto en la agrupación de estas. Por último, el resultado de tesis es el establecimiento de proyecto Gi2MO que sirve como incubadora de soluciones para Gestión de Ideas y herramientas de código abierto ya maduras como alternativas a otros sistemas comerciales. Desde el punto de vista académico, el proyecto ha provisto de recursos a ciertos experimentos en el área de Sistemas de Gestión de Ideas y logró convertirse en un foro que reunión para un número de socios tanto académicos como industriales.

Syntactic and Semantic Relationships in Models of Complex Systems: An Ecological Case

In this paper, the authors extend and generalize the methodology based on the dynamics of systems with the use of differential equations as equations of state, allowing that first order transformed functions not only apply to the primitive or original variables, but also doing so to more complex expressions derived from them, and extending the rules that determine the generation of transformed superior to zero order (variable or primitive). Also, it is demonstrated that for all models of complex reality, there exists a complex model from the syntactic and semantic point of view. The theory is exemplified with a concrete model: MARIOLA model.

Algorithms for parsing search queries in inverted file document retrieval systems /

Includes bibliographical references.

A list merging processor for inverted file information retrieval systems /

Originally presented as the author's thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The responsiveness summary of permit decisions for the city of Lake Forest and DK Recycling Systems, Inc.'s landscape waste compost facility and landscape waste transfer station, Lake Forest, Illinois : hearing file no. 325-97.

"January 1998."

Semantic reasoning for autonomic IT systems

Autonomic systems are required to adapt continually to changing environments and user goals. This process involves the real-Time update of the system's knowledge base, which should therefore be stored in a machine-readable format and automatically checked for consistency. OWL ontologies meet both requirements, as they represent collections of knowl- edge expressed in FIrst order logic, and feature embedded reasoners. To take advantage of these OWL ontology char- acteristics, this PhD project will devise a framework com- prising a theoretical foundation, tools and methods for de- veloping knowledge-centric autonomic systems. Within this framework, the knowledge storage and maintenance roles will be fulfilled by a specialised class of OWL ontologies. ©2014 ACM.

Design principles of semantic binary database management systems

The Semantic Binary Data Model (SBM) is a viable alternative to the now-dominant relational data model. SBM would be especially advantageous for applications dealing with complex interrelated networks of objects provided that a robust efficient implementation can be achieved. This dissertation presents an implementation design method for SBM, algorithms, and their analytical and empirical evaluation. Our method allows building a robust and flexible database engine with a wider applicability range and improved performance. ^ Extensions to SBM are introduced and an implementation of these extensions is proposed that allows the database engine to efficiently support applications with a predefined set of queries. A New Record data structure is proposed. Trade-offs of employing Fact, Record and Bitmap Data structures for storing information in a semantic database are analyzed. ^ A clustering ID distribution algorithm and an efficient algorithm for object ID encoding are proposed. Mapping to an XML data model is analyzed and a new XML-based XSDL language facilitating interoperability of the system is defined. Solutions to issues associated with making the database engine multi-platform are presented. An improvement to the atomic update algorithm suitable for certain scenarios of database recovery is proposed. ^ Specific guidelines are devised for implementing a robust and well-performing database engine based on the extended Semantic Data Model. ^

A Retrospective Socio-Semantic Analysis of the PRO-VE Conferences

Part 19: Knowledge Management in Networks

Building an Ontology of Product/Service-Systems: Using a Maritime Case Study to Elicit Classifications and Characteristics

Part 4: Transition Towards Product-Service Systems

Collaborative Systems of Systems Need Collaborative Design

Part 1: Introduction

The Use of Latent Semantic Indexing to Mitigate OCR Effects of Related Document Images

Due to both the widespread and multipurpose use of document images and the current availability of a high number of document images repositories, robust information retrieval mechanisms and systems have been increasingly demanded. This paper presents an approach to support the automatic generation of relationships among document images by exploiting Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) and Optical Character Recognition (OCR). We developed the LinkDI (Linking of Document Images) service, which extracts and indexes document images content, computes its latent semantics, and defines relationships among images as hyperlinks. LinkDI was experimented with document images repositories, and its performance was evaluated by comparing the quality of the relationships created among textual documents as well as among their respective document images. Considering those same document images, we ran further experiments in order to compare the performance of LinkDI when it exploits or not the LSI technique. Experimental results showed that LSI can mitigate the effects of usual OCR misrecognition, which reinforces the feasibility of LinkDI relating OCR output with high degradation.

A Procedure for Semantic Querying in the Adaptive Formalism

This paper contains a new proposal for the definition of the fundamental operation of query under the Adaptive Formalism, one capable of locating functional nuclei from descriptions of their semantics. To demonstrate the method`s applicability, an implementation of the query procedure constrained to a specific class of devices is shown, and its asymptotic computational complexity is discussed.

Ecological interface design for pasteurizer II: A process description of semantic mapping

Ecological interface design (EID) is proving to be a promising approach to the design of interfaces for complex dynamic systems. Although the principles of EID and examples of its effective use are widely available, few readily available examples exist of how the individual displays that constitute an ecological interface are developed. This paper presents the semantic mapping process within EID in the context of prior theoretical work in this area. The semantic mapping process that was used in developing an ecological interface for the Pasteurizer II microworld is outlined, and the results of an evaluation of the ecological interface against a more conventional interface are briefly presented. Subjective reports indicate features of the ecological interface that made it particularly valuable for participants. Finally, we outline the steps of an analytic process for using EID. The findings presented here can be applied in the design of ecological interfaces or of configural displays for dynamic processes.