Radiocarbon ages and average physical properties of sediment cores obtained during Icebreaker Oden cruise OSO0910

To date, understanding of ice sheet retreat within Pine Island Bay (PIB) following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was based on seven radiocarbon dates and only fragmentary seafloor geomorphic evidence. During the austral summer 2009-2010, restricted sea ice cover allowed for the collection of 27 sediment cores from the outer PIB trough region. Combining these cores with data from prior cruises, over 133 cores have been used to conduct a detailed sedimentological facies analysis. These results, augmented by 23 new radiocarbon dates, are used to reconstruct the post-LGM deglacial history of PIB. Our results record a clear retreat stratigraphy in PIB composed of, from top to base; terrigenous sandy silt (distal glacimarine), pebbly sandy mud (ice-proximal glacimarine), and till. Initial retreat from the outer-continental shelf began shortly after the LGM and before 16.4 k cal yr BP, as a likely response to rising sea level. Bedforms in outer PIB document episodic retreat in the form of back-stepping grounding zone wedges and are associated with proximal glacimarine sediments. A sub-ice shelf facies is observed in central PIB and spans ~12.3-10.6 k cal yr BP. It is possible that widespread impingement of warm water onto the continental shelf caused an abrupt and widespread change from sub-ice shelf sedimentation to distal glacimarine sedimentation dominated by widespread dispersal of terrigenous silt between 7.8 and 7.0 k cal yr BP. The final phase of retreat ended before ~1.3 k cal yr BP, when the grounding line migrated to a location near the current ice margin.

Is Group Lending A Good Enforcement Scheme for Achieving High Repayment Rates?: Evidence from Field Experiments in Vietnam

Microfinance institutions employ various kinds of incentive schemes but estimating the effect of each scheme is not easy due to endogeneity bias. We conducted field experiments in Vietnam to capture the role of joint liability, monitoring, cross-reporting, social sanctions, communication and group formation in borrowers’ repayment behavior. We find that joint liability contracts cause serious free-riding problems, inducing strategic default and lowering repayment rates. When group members observe each others’ investment returns, participants are more likely to choose strategic default. Even after introducing a cross-reporting system and/or penalties among borrowers, the default rates and the ratios of participants who chose strategic default under joint liability are still higher than those under individual lending. We also find that joint liability lending often failed to induce mutual insurance among borrowers. Those who had been helped or who had repaid a little in the previous round were more likely to default strategically and repay a little again in the current round and those who paid large amounts were always the same individuals.

Responses of riparian guilds to flowalterations in a Mediterranean stream

Questions: Do Mediterranean riparian guilds show distinct responses to stream water declines? If observed,which are the most sensitive and resilient guilds and theirmost affected attributes? Location: Tie¿tar river below the Rosarito dam, central-western Spain. Methods: We identified riparian guilds based on key woody species features and species distribution within this Mediterranean river corridor, and evaluated similarity of their responses to long-term flow alteration (i.e. stream water declines since dam construction in 1959). Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to group surveyed vegetation bands according to species composition. The groups were designated as riparian guilds where each vegetation group comprising a guild: (1) contains species sharing similar features (using PCA); and (2) shares a similar environment (using DCA). Changes in several guild attributes (i.e. dominance and species composition, diversity and establishment patterns) during the regulated period were compared statistically. We used pre- and post-dam established vegetation bands identified based on old (1956) and modern (2006) aerial photographs and field measurements of woody species diameter. Results: Responses to flow alterations varied between guilds according to ecological requirements of their species. The ability to survive water stress (i.e. ?Xeric? guilds) and drag forces caused by floods (?Torrential? guilds) allowed certain pioneer shrub-dominated guilds (e.g. Flueggea tinctoria and Salix salviifolia) to spread on newly emerged surfaces downward to the main channel after flow alterations, although new shrubland had less species diversity than pre-dam shrubland. In contrast, new hydromorphological conditions following damming limited recruitment of native late-successional tree guilds sensitive to floods (to drag forces, inundation and anoxia; i.e. ?Slow-water? and ?Flood-sensitive?, respectively) and those with greater water requirements (i.e. ?Hydric?) (e.g. Alnus glutinosa and Celtis australis), although species diversity increased in this mature forest through co-existence of remaining riparian species and new arrival of upland species. Conclusions: Changes in several riparian attributes after flow alterations differed between guilds. Stream water declines after damming caused shifts in species-poor pioneer shrubland downwards to the watered channel, resulting in severe declines ofmaturenative forest.Understanding vegetation guild responses provides information about general trends in plant populations and assemblage structures expected to occur during river development and flow regulation, increasing our capacity to detect and synthesize complex flowalteration?riparian ecosystem response relationships, and anticipate irreversible impacts.

A Video-Aware FEC-Based Unequal Loss Protection Scheme for RTP Video Streaming

A video-aware unequal loss protection (ULP) system for protecting RTP video streaming in bursty packet loss networks is proposed. Just considering the relevance of the frame, the state of the channel and the bitrate constraints of the protection bitstream, our algorithm selects in real time the most suitable frames to be protected through forward error correction (FEC) techniques. It benefits from a wise RTP encapsulation that allows working at a frame level without requiring any further process than that of parsing RTP headers, so it is perfectly suitable to be included in commercial transmitters. The simulation results show how our proposed ULP technique outperforms non-smart schemes.

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).

An automatic translation scheme from prolog to the andorra kernel language

The Andorra family of languages (which includes the Andorra Kernel Language -AKL) is aimed, in principie, at simultaneously supporting the programming styles of Prolog and committed choice languages. On the other hand, AKL requires a somewhat detailed specification of control by the user. This could be avoided by programming in Prolog to run on AKL. However, Prolog programs cannot be executed directly on AKL. This is due to a number of factors, from more or less trivial syntactic differences to more involved issues such as the treatment of cut and making the exploitation of certain types of parallelism possible. This paper provides basic guidelines for constructing an automatic compiler of Prolog programs into AKL, which can bridge those differences. In addition to supporting Prolog, our style of translation achieves independent and-parallel execution where possible, which is relevant since this type of parallel execution preserves, through the translation, the user-perceived "complexity" of the original Prolog program.

Implementation of an event driven scheme for visualizing parallel execution of logic programs

This article presents in an informal way some early results on the design of a series of paradigms for visualization of the parallel execution of logic programs. The results presented here refer to the visualization of or-parallelism, as in MUSE and Aurora, deterministic dependent and-parallelism, as in Andorra-I, and independent and-parallelism as in &-Prolog. A tool has been implemented for this purpose and has been interfaced with these systems. Results are presented showing the visualization of executions from these systems and the usefulness of the resulting tool is briefly discussed.

Implementation of an event driven scheme for visualizing parallel execution of logic programs.

This article presents in an informal way some early results on the design of a series of paradigms for visualization of the parallel execution of logic programs. The results presented here refer to the visualization of or-parallelism, as in MUSE and Aurora, deterministic dependent and-parallelism, as in Andorra-I, and independent and-parallelism as in &-Prolog. A tool has been implemented for this purpose and has been interfaced with these systems. Results are presented showing the visualization of executions from these systems and the usefulness of the resulting tool is briefly discussed.

An automatic translation scheme from CLP to AKL

The Andorra Kernel language scheme was aimed, in principle, at simultaneously supporting the programming styles of Prolog and committed choice languages. Within the constraint programming paradigm, this family of languages could also in principle support the concurrent constraint paradigm. This happens for the Agents Kernel Language (AKL). On the other hand, AKL requires a somewhat detailed specification of control by the user. This could be avoided by programming in CLP to run on AKL. However, CLP programs cannot be executed directly on AKL. This is due to a number of factors, from more or less trivial syntactic differences to more involved issues such as the treatment of cut and making the exploitation of certain types of parallelism possible. This paper provides a translation scheme which is a basis of an automatic compiler of CLP programs into AKL, which can bridge those differences. In addition to supporting CLP, our style of translation achieves independent and-parallel execution where possible, which is relevant since this type of parallel execution preserves, through the translation, the user-perceived "complexity" of the original program.

A proposal for a flexible scheduling and memory management scheme for non-deterministic, andparallel execution of logic programs

In this paper, we examine the issue of memory management in the parallel execution of logic programs. We concentrate on non-deterministic and-parallel schemes which we believe present a relatively general set of problems to be solved, including most of those encountered in the memory management of or-parallel systems. We present a distributed stack memory management model which allows flexible scheduling of goals. Previously proposed models (based on the "Marker model") are lacking in that they impose restrictions on the selection of goals to be executed or they may require consume a large amount of virtual memory. This paper first presents results which imply that the above mentioned shortcomings can have significant performance impacts. An extension of the Marker Model is then proposed which allows flexible scheduling of goals while keeping (virtual) memory consumption down. Measurements are presented which show the advantage of this solution. Methods for handling forward and backward execution, cut and roll back are discussed in the context of the proposed scheme. In addition, the paper shows how the same mechanism for flexible scheduling can be applied to allow the efficient handling of the very general form of suspension that can occur in systems which combine several types of and-parallelism and more sophisticated methods of executing logic programs. We believe that the results are applicable to many and- and or-parallel systems.

Improving probabilistic flood forecasting through a data assimilation scheme based on genetic programming

Opportunities offered by high performance computing provide a significant degree of promise in the enhancement of the performance of real-time flood forecasting systems. In this paper, a real-time framework for probabilistic flood forecasting through data assimilation is presented. The distributed rainfall-runoff real-time interactive basin simulator (RIBS) model is selected to simulate the hydrological process in the basin. Although the RIBS model is deterministic, it is run in a probabilistic way through the results of calibration developed in a previous work performed by the authors that identifies the probability distribution functions that best characterise the most relevant model parameters. Adaptive techniques improve the result of flood forecasts because the model can be adapted to observations in real time as new information is available. The new adaptive forecast model based on genetic programming as a data assimilation technique is compared with the previously developed flood forecast model based on the calibration results. Both models are probabilistic as they generate an ensemble of hydrographs, taking the different uncertainties inherent in any forecast process into account. The Manzanares River basin was selected as a case study, with the process being computationally intensive as it requires simulation of many replicas of the ensemble in real time.

Optimal and Long-Term Dynamic Transport Policy Design: Seeking Maximum Social Welfare through a Pricing Scheme.

This article presents an alternative approach to the decision-making process in transport strategy design. The study explores the possibility of integrating forecasting, assessment and optimization procedures in support of a decision-making process designed to reach the best achievable scenario through mobility policies. Long-term evaluation, as required by a dynamic system such as a city, is provided by a strategic Land-Use and Transport Interaction (LUTI) model. The social welfare achieved by implementing mobility LUTI model policies is measured through a cost-benefit analysis and maximized through an optimization process throughout the evaluation period. The method is tested by optimizing a pricing policy scheme in Madrid on a cordon toll in a context requiring system efficiency, social equity and environmental quality. The optimized scheme yields an appreciable increase in social surplus through a relatively low rate compared to other similar pricing toll schemes. The results highlight the different considerations regarding mobility impacts on the case study area, as well as the major contributors to social welfare surplus. This leads the authors to reconsider the cost-analysis approach, as defined in the study, as the best option for formulating sustainability measures.

An optimized QoS scheme for IMS-NEMO in heterogeneous networks

The network mobility (NEMO) is proposed to support the mobility management when users move as a whole. In IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), the individual Quality of Service (QoS) control for NEMO results in excessive signaling cost. On the other hand, current QoS schemes have two drawbacks: unawareness of the heterogeneous wireless environment and inefficient utilization of the reserved bandwidth. To solve these problems, we present a novel heterogeneous bandwidth sharing (HBS) scheme for QoS provision under IMS-based NEMO (IMS-NEMO). The HBS scheme selects the most suitable access network for each session and enables the new coming non-real-time sessions to share bandwidth with the Variable Bit Rate (VBR) coded media flows. The modeling and simulation results demonstrate that the HBS can satisfy users' QoS requirement and obtain a more efficient use of the scarce wireless bandwidth.