Portal de Busca Integrada do SIBiUSP: metodologia de implantação

Relata o estudo, a instalação e implantação de ferramenta de descoberta e entrega do Portal de Busca Integrada, para o Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas da Universidade de São Paulo (SIBiUSP). Esta nova interface denominada Portal de Busca Integrada possibilita uma nova experiência de pesquisa científica ao usuário final pela recuperação de literatura em diferentes fontes de informação.

Fomento de la lectura y Web 2.0 en la Biblioteca Universitaria de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

La Biblioteca Universitaria de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria ha tomado parte activa en la promoción de la lectura entre sus comunidades de usuarios. Para conseguir este objetivo se han adquirido colecciones de literatura de ocio, tanto en formato físico como electrónico, y se han comenzado a utilizar herramientas 2.0, fundamentalmente los blogs para dar a conocer novedades literarias y actividades de la biblioteca relacionadas con el fomento de la lectura. Pero se ha ido más allá, y se han creado una serie de proyectos más ambiciosos que permiten una mayor participación de los usuarios. Estamos ante una Biblioteca 2.0. donde se pueden compartir contenidos, opiniones, conocimientos, valoraciones, etc. Es el caso de sitios webs, opac social y otros como facebook, tuenti, twitter, wikipedia, canal youtube, todas ellas vías descritas en esta comunicación con el fin de promocionar el fondo bibliográfico y la lectura en general.

Plataforma modular para la gestión de ponencias de congresos internacionales

[ES] La organización de congresos internacionales incluye un conjunto amplio de tareas diversas, de variadas naturalezas. Algunas de ellas requieren una supervisión cuidadosa al ser factor determinante del éxito del congreso. Es posible que la tarea y delicada más compleja sea la organización del programa científico del evento, porque requiere satisfacer las necesidades, a veces contrapuestas, de muchas personas diferentes, con diferentes roles de participación en el mismo. Las necesidades de un asistente son totalmente diferentes a las de un ponente, las de un revisor, o a las del Program Chair del evento. El asistente requiere recibir una información en el formato publicitado por el congreso, tal vez poder participar en discusiones o debates, y recibir una documentación en forma de actas, libro de abstracts, etc. Un autor requiere poder enviar para consideración un abstract o un artículo, recibir el resultado de la evaluación del mismo y poder, si es aceptado, subir el artículo definitivo, conocer cuándo tendrá lugar su comunicación, etc. Para complicar más las cosas, puede darse el caso, y se da con frecuencia, que las mismas personas actúan en el congreso con más de un rol diferente. El propósito de este TFG no puede ser abarcar toda esta problemática, dada la fuerte restricción temporal de los Trabajos fin de Grado. Este TFG trata de esbozar un prototipo que pueda ser extendido con posterioridad este trabajo, donde se presente un prototipo con el esqueleto y estructura fundamental de una aplicación futura que englobe el máximo de elementos de la organización del congreso. También se pretende que se desarrollen dos módulos fundamentales: un módulo para la gestión de usuarios y roles, asumiendo que podemos definir ya los roles, vistas y privilegios.

Gestor web de recursos geoespaciales con tecnología Openlayers

[ES] El objetivo de este Trabajo Final de Grado (TFG) es la creación de un prototipo de aplicación web para la gestión de recursos geoespaciales. Esta propuesta surgió a partir de la necesidad de disponer de una herramienta que no tuviera que ser instalada en un dispositivo, sino servida por un servidor web, permitiendo su acceso desde cualquier parte y dispositivo. El resultado fue el Gestor Web de Recursos Geoespaciales con Tecnología OpenLayers, una aplicación que combina diversas herramientas (OpenLayers, GeoServer, PostgreSQL, jQuery…) – todas ellas basadas en Software Libre – para cumplir funcionalidades como la creación de primitivas vectoriales sobre un mapa, gestión y visualización de la información asociada, edición de estilos, modificación de coordenadas, etc. siendo todas éstas funcionalidades características de un Sistema de Información Geográfica (SIG) y ofreciendo una interfaz de uso cómoda y eficaz, que abstraiga al usuario de detalles internos y complejos. El material desarrollado dispone del potencial necesario para convertirse en una solución a las necesidades de gestión de información geoespacial de la ULPGC, especialmente en el campus de Tafira, sobre el que se ha ejemplificado su uso. Además, a diferencia de las herramientas ofertadas por empresas como Google o Microsoft, esta aplicación está por completo bajo una licencia GNU GPL v3, lo que permite que se pueda indagar dentro de su código, mejorarlo y añadir funcionalidades a cualquier persona interesada.

Desarrollo de una aplicación móvil híbrida de soporte para congresos en iOS

[ES]Esta aplicación surge de la necesidad de generar una herramienta de bajo coste capaz de dar un soporte estandarizado a diferentes tipos de congresos a través de un mismo software. Este tipo de congresos debe manejar grandes volúmenes de datos de forma eficiente. Así, el objetivo fundamental de este proyecto es generar una aplicación para móviles que de soporte a congresos, usando para ello un desarrollo móvil que incorpore elementos del desarrollo web; es decir, un desarrollo híbrido. Como objetivo secundario, se estudiará la viabilidad de este sistema de desarrollo, evaluando las diferencias obtenidas frente a un desarrollo web completo tanto en eficiencia como en recursos utilizados.

La città di Bologna e la sua storia: diffusione e condivisione delle conoscenze attraverso Webgis open source e Web Mapping

To understand a city and its urban structure it is necessary to study its history. This is feasible through GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and its by-products on the web. Starting from a cartographic view they allow an initial understanding of, and a comparison between, present and past data together with an easy and intuitive access to database information. The research done led to the creation of a GIS for the city of Bologna. It is based on varied data such as historical map, vector and alphanumeric historical data, etc.. After providing information about GIS we thought of spreading and sharing the collected data on the Web after studying two solutions available on the market: Web Mapping and WebGIS. In this study we discuss the stages, beginning with the development of Historical GIS of Bologna, which led to the making of a WebGIS Open Source (MapServer and Chameleon) and the Web Mapping services (Google Earth, Google Maps and OpenLayers).

Progettazione e sviluppo di applicazioni distribuite su Web: da JavaScript a TypeScript

Il Web nel corso della sua esistenza ha subito un mutamento dovuto in parte dalle richieste del mercato, ma soprattutto dall’evoluzione e la nascita costante delle numerose tecnologie coinvolte in esso. Si è passati da un’iniziale semplice diffusione di contenuti statici, ad una successiva collezione di siti web, dapprima con limitate presenze di dinamicità e interattività (a causa dei limiti tecnologici), ma successivamente poi evoluti alle attuali applicazioni web moderne che hanno colmato il gap con le applicazioni desktop, sia a livello tecnologico, che a livello di diffusione effettiva sul mercato. Tali applicazioni web moderne possono presentare un grado di complessità paragonabile in tutto e per tutto ai sistemi software desktop tradizionali; le tecnologie web hanno subito nel tempo un evoluzione legata ai cambiamenti del web stesso e tra le tecnologie più diffuse troviamo JavaScript, un linguaggio di scripting nato per dare dinamicità ai siti web che si ritrova tutt’ora ad essere utilizzato come linguaggio di programmazione di applicazioni altamente strutturate. Nel corso degli anni la comunità di sviluppo che ruota intorno a JavaScript ha prodotto numerose librerie al supporto del linguaggio dotando così gli sviluppatori di un linguaggio completo in grado di far realizzare applicazioni web avanzate. Le recenti evoluzioni dei motori javascript presenti nei browser hanno inoltre incrementato le prestazioni del linguaggio consacrandone la sua leadership nei confronti dei linguaggi concorrenti. Negli ultimi anni a causa della crescita della complessità delle applicazioni web, javascript è stato messo molto in discussione in quanto come linguaggio non offre le classiche astrazioni consolidate nel tempo per la programmazione altamente strutturata; per questo motivo sono nati linguaggi orientati alla programmazione ad oggetti per il web che si pongono come obiettivo la risoluzione di questo problema: tra questi si trovano linguaggi che hanno l’ambizione di soppiantare JavaScript come ad esempio Dart creato da Google, oppure altri che invece sfruttano JavaScript come linguaggio base al quale aggiungono le caratteristiche mancanti e, mediante il processo di compilazione, producono codice JavaScript puro compatibile con i motori JavaScript presenti nei browser. JavaScript storicamente fu introdotto come linguaggio sia per la programmazione client-side, che per la controparte server-side, ma per vari motivi (la forte concorrenza, basse performance, etc.) ebbe successo solo come linguaggio per la programmazione client; le recenti evoluzioni del linguaggio lo hanno però riportato in auge anche per la programmazione server-side, soprattutto per i miglioramenti delle performance, ma anche per la sua naturale predisposizione per la programmazione event-driven, paradigma alternativo al multi-threading per la programmazione concorrente. Un’applicazione web di elevata complessità al giorno d’oggi può quindi essere interamente sviluppata utilizzando il linguaggio JavaScript, acquisendone sia i suoi vantaggi che gli svantaggi; le nuove tecnologie introdotte ambiscono quindi a diventare la soluzione per i problemi presenti in JavaScript e di conseguenza si propongono come potenziali nuovi linguaggi completi per la programmazione web del futuro, anticipando anche le prossime evoluzioni delle tecnologie già esistenti preannunciate dagli enti standard della programmazione web, il W3C ed ECMAScript. In questa tesi saranno affrontate le tematiche appena introdotte confrontando tra loro le tecnologie in gioco con lo scopo di ottenere un’ampia panoramica delle soluzioni che uno sviluppatore web dovrà prendere in considerazione per realizzare un sistema di importanti dimensioni; in particolare sarà approfondito il linguaggio TypeScript proposto da Microsoft, il quale è nato in successione a Dart apparentemente con lo stesso scopo, ma grazie alla compatibilità con JavaScript e soprattutto con il vasto mondo di librerie legate ad esso nate in questi ultimi anni, si presenta nel mercato come tecnologia facile da apprendere per tutti gli sviluppatori che già da tempo hanno sviluppato abilità nella programmazione JavaScript.

Monitoring di un portale web: modello e implementazione

Ogni giorno enormi quantità di dati sono prodotti come record dettagliati del comportamento di utilizzo del Web, ma l'obiettivo di trarne conoscenza rimane ancora una sfida. In questa trattazione viene descritto EOP(Eye-On-Portal), un framework di monitoring che si propone come strumento per riuscire a catturare informazioni dettagliate sulle componenti della pagina visitata dall'utente e sulle interazioni di quest'ultimo con il portale: i dati raccolti potrebbero avere utilità nell'ottimizzazione del layout e nell'usabilità del portale.

El DOI en las revistas científicas del portal SciELO

Se presenta una descripción del portal de revistas científicas SciELO y del identificador DOI a través de su alcance, año de creación, historia, administración, normativa, estructura, ISBN-A y fuentes de consulta. Se brinda información acerca de la aplicación del DOI en las citas bibliográficas: en los estilos APA y Vancouver y en las normas ISO 690 (ISO, 2010) y ABNT 6023 (ABNT, 2002). El trabajo se propuso explorar el grado de implementación del DOI en las revistas científicas disponibles en SciELO, identificar el lugar de visualización del DOI, conocer la cantidad de editores según el prefijo DOI, determinar la cantidad de títulos de revistas que incluyen en el sufijo el código ISSN e identificar grado de aplicación del DOI en los estilos y en las normas de citas bibliográficas disponibles dentro de SciELO. Se aplicó una metodología descriptiva donde los datos fueron recolectados a través de la observación directa de las páginas web de las 898 revistas vigentes disponibles entre los meses de diciembre de 2012 y enero de 2013 en el portal SciELO. Se concluye que: menos del 50 de los países que conforman SciELO en la actualidad están empleando el DOI en sus publicaciones; el código se visualiza fundamentalmente en los archivos HTML; sólo 30 de los 929 editores lo implementaron y que en la mayoría de los casos se incluye el ISSN dentro del sufijo del identificador y que, si bien SciELO utiliza el DOI en la totalidad de las citas de sus artículos, no lo hace en forma estricta tal como lo establecen las normas y los estilos

El DOI en las revistas científicas del portal SciELO

Se presenta una descripción del portal de revistas científicas SciELO y del identificador DOI a través de su alcance, año de creación, historia, administración, normativa, estructura, ISBN-A y fuentes de consulta. Se brinda información acerca de la aplicación del DOI en las citas bibliográficas: en los estilos APA y Vancouver y en las normas ISO 690 (ISO, 2010) y ABNT 6023 (ABNT, 2002). El trabajo se propuso explorar el grado de implementación del DOI en las revistas científicas disponibles en SciELO, identificar el lugar de visualización del DOI, conocer la cantidad de editores según el prefijo DOI, determinar la cantidad de títulos de revistas que incluyen en el sufijo el código ISSN e identificar grado de aplicación del DOI en los estilos y en las normas de citas bibliográficas disponibles dentro de SciELO. Se aplicó una metodología descriptiva donde los datos fueron recolectados a través de la observación directa de las páginas web de las 898 revistas vigentes disponibles entre los meses de diciembre de 2012 y enero de 2013 en el portal SciELO. Se concluye que: menos del 50 de los países que conforman SciELO en la actualidad están empleando el DOI en sus publicaciones; el código se visualiza fundamentalmente en los archivos HTML; sólo 30 de los 929 editores lo implementaron y que en la mayoría de los casos se incluye el ISSN dentro del sufijo del identificador y que, si bien SciELO utiliza el DOI en la totalidad de las citas de sus artículos, no lo hace en forma estricta tal como lo establecen las normas y los estilos

El DOI en las revistas científicas del portal SciELO

Se presenta una descripción del portal de revistas científicas SciELO y del identificador DOI a través de su alcance, año de creación, historia, administración, normativa, estructura, ISBN-A y fuentes de consulta. Se brinda información acerca de la aplicación del DOI en las citas bibliográficas: en los estilos APA y Vancouver y en las normas ISO 690 (ISO, 2010) y ABNT 6023 (ABNT, 2002). El trabajo se propuso explorar el grado de implementación del DOI en las revistas científicas disponibles en SciELO, identificar el lugar de visualización del DOI, conocer la cantidad de editores según el prefijo DOI, determinar la cantidad de títulos de revistas que incluyen en el sufijo el código ISSN e identificar grado de aplicación del DOI en los estilos y en las normas de citas bibliográficas disponibles dentro de SciELO. Se aplicó una metodología descriptiva donde los datos fueron recolectados a través de la observación directa de las páginas web de las 898 revistas vigentes disponibles entre los meses de diciembre de 2012 y enero de 2013 en el portal SciELO. Se concluye que: menos del 50 de los países que conforman SciELO en la actualidad están empleando el DOI en sus publicaciones; el código se visualiza fundamentalmente en los archivos HTML; sólo 30 de los 929 editores lo implementaron y que en la mayoría de los casos se incluye el ISSN dentro del sufijo del identificador y que, si bien SciELO utiliza el DOI en la totalidad de las citas de sus artículos, no lo hace en forma estricta tal como lo establecen las normas y los estilos

Sharing Human-Generated Observations by Integrating HMI and the Semantic Sensor Web

Current “Internet of Things” concepts point to a future where connected objects gather meaningful information about their environment and share it with other objects and people. In particular, objects embedding Human Machine Interaction (HMI), such as mobile devices and, increasingly, connected vehicles, home appliances, urban interactive infrastructures, etc., may not only be conceived as sources of sensor information, but, through interaction with their users, they can also produce highly valuable context-aware human-generated observations. We believe that the great promise offered by combining and sharing all of the different sources of information available can be realized through the integration of HMI and Semantic Sensor Web technologies. This paper presents a technological framework that harmonizes two of the most influential HMI and Sensor Web initiatives: the W3C’s Multimodal Architecture and Interfaces (MMI) and the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) with its semantic extension, respectively. Although the proposed framework is general enough to be applied in a variety of connected objects integrating HMI, a particular development is presented for a connected car scenario where drivers’ observations about the traffic or their environment are shared across the Semantic Sensor Web. For implementation and evaluation purposes an on-board OSGi (Open Services Gateway Initiative) architecture was built, integrating several available HMI, Sensor Web and Semantic Web technologies. A technical performance test and a conceptual validation of the scenario with potential users are reported, with results suggesting the approach is sound

IRC 2.0. Medios para la información, la relación y la comunicación en la web 2.0

El ritmo acelerado al que llegan y desaparecen tendencias, novedades, herramientas, tecnologías, dispositivos, servicios, etc., en nuestra sociedad de la información exige a cualquier ciudadano cierta capacidad para interiorizar esa complejidad. En el artículo se presenta y desarrolla muy brevemente un modelo simplificado que nos ayudará en el análisis de tres fenómenos clave para entender el estadio evolutivo actual de la Web como parte más visible de la Red: el periodismo ciudadano, las redes sociales y la Web en tiempo real. Se basa en tres elementos (infotecnologías, personas y contenidos) y se articula sobre tres ejes (información, relación y comunicación). El modelo quiere servir al lector como herramienta intelectual y referencia conceptual para profundizar en cualquiera de sus dimensiones.

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).

CoLogNetWS: the Colognet web-site

CoLogNetWS is a Web-site on Computational Logic systems, environments, and implementation technology. CoLogNetWS provides at the same time:A simple WWW interface which allows the users to access/modify the data stored in its database. An automatic data exchange between CoLogNetWS and the rest of Web-sites, in order to keep their databases up-to-date. This document constitutes an internals manual, providing information on how the different internal parts of CoLogNetWS are connected.