Training project management complexity in postgraduate and continuing education programs: a learning strategy in the eshe (European Space of Higher Education) framework

The objective of this paper is to address the methodological process of a teaching strategy for training project management complexity in postgraduate programs. The proposal is made up of different methods —intuitive, comparative, deductive, case study, problem-solving Project-Based Learning— and different activities inside and outside the classroom. This integration of methods motivated the current use of the concept of ―learning strategy‖. The strategy has two phases: firstly, the integration of the competences —technical, behavioral and contextual—in real projects; and secondly, the learning activity was oriented in upper level of knowledge, the evaluating the complexity for projects management in real situations. Both the competences in the learning strategy and the Project Complexity Evaluation are based on the ICB of IPMA. The learning strategy is applied in an international Postgraduate Program —Erasmus Mundus Master of Science— with the participation of five Universities of the European Union. This master program is fruit of a cooperative experience from one Educative Innovation Group of the UPM -GIE-Project-, two Research Groups of the UPM and the collaboration with other external agents to the university. Some reflections on the experience and the main success factors in the learning strategy were presented in the paper.

Knowledge pipeline in freight pipeline industry: competence- based model for open innovation

There is growing concern over the challenges for innovation in Freight Pipeline industry. Since the early works of Chesbrough a decade ago, we have learned a lot about the content, context and process of open innovation. However, much more research is needed in Freight Pipeline Industry. The reality is that few corporations have institutionalized open innovation practices in ways that have enabled substantial growth or industry leadership. Based on this, we pursue the following question: How does a firm’s integration into knowledge networks depend on its ability to manage knowledge? A competence-based model for freight pipeline organizations is analysed, this model should be understood by any organization in order to be successful in motivating professionals who carry out innovations and play a main role in collaborative knowledge creation processes. This paper aims to explain how can open innovation achieve its potential in most Freight Pipeline Industries.

Parallelizing irregular and pointer-based computations automatically: perspectives from logic and constraint programming

Irregular computations pose sorne of the most interesting and challenging problems in automatic parallelization. Irregularity appears in certain kinds of numerical problems and is pervasive in symbolic applications. Such computations often use dynamic data structures, which make heavy use of pointers. This complicates all the steps of a parallelizing compiler, from independence detection to task partitioning and placement. Starting in the mid 80s there has been significant progress in the development of parallelizing compilers for logic pro­gramming (and more recently, constraint programming) resulting in quite capable paralle­lizers. The typical applications of these paradigms frequently involve irregular computations, and make heavy use of dynamic data structures with pointers, since logical variables represent in practice a well-behaved form of pointers. This arguably makes the techniques used in these compilers potentially interesting. In this paper, we introduce in a tutoríal way, sorne of the problems faced by parallelizing compilers for logic and constraint programs and provide pointers to sorne of the significant progress made in the area. In particular, this work has resulted in a series of achievements in the areas of inter-procedural pointer aliasing analysis for independence detection, cost models and cost analysis, cactus-stack memory management, techniques for managing speculative and irregular computations through task granularity control and dynamic task allocation such as work-stealing schedulers), etc.

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).

Ensemble transcript interaction networks: A case study on Alzheimer's disease

Systems biology techniques are a topic of recent interest within the neurological field. Computational intelligence (CI) addresses this holistic perspective by means of consensus or ensemble techniques ultimately capable of uncovering new and relevant findings. In this paper, we propose the application of a CI approach based on ensemble Bayesian network classifiers and multivariate feature subset selection to induce probabilistic dependences that could match or unveil biological relationships. The research focuses on the analysis of high-throughput Alzheimer's disease (AD) transcript profiling. The analysis is conducted from two perspectives. First, we compare the expression profiles of hippocampus subregion entorhinal cortex (EC) samples of AD patients and controls. Second, we use the ensemble approach to study four types of samples: EC and dentate gyrus (DG) samples from both patients and controls. Results disclose transcript interaction networks with remarkable structures and genes not directly related to AD by previous studies. The ensemble is able to identify a variety of transcripts that play key roles in other neurological pathologies. Classical statistical assessment by means of non-parametric tests confirms the relevance of the majority of the transcripts. The ensemble approach pinpoints key metabolic mechanisms that could lead to new findings in the pathogenesis and development of AD

Partial order and contextual net semantics for atomic and locally atomic CC programs

We present two concurrent semantics (i.e. semantics where concurrency is explicitely represented) for CC programs with atomic tells. One is based on simple partial orders of computation steps, while the other one is based on contextual nets and it is an extensión of a previous one for eventual CC programs. Both such semantics allow us to derive concurrency, dependency, and nondeterminism information for the considered languages. We prove some properties about the relation between the two semantics, and also about the relation between them and the operational semantics. Moreover, we discuss how to use the contextual net semantics in the context of CLP programs. More precisely, by interpreting concurrency as possible parallelism, our semantics can be useful for a safe parallelization of some CLP computation steps. Dually, the dependency information may also be interpreted as necessary sequentialization, thus possibly exploiting it for the task of scheduling CC programs. Moreover, our semantics is also suitable for CC programs with a new kind of atomic tell (called locally atomic tell), which checks for consistency only the constraints it depends on. Such a tell achieves a reasonable trade-off between efficiency and atomicity, since the checked constraints can be stored in a local memory and are thus easily accessible even in a distributed implementation.

And-or parallel prolog: a recomputation based approach

We argüe that in order to exploit both Independent And- and Or-parallelism in Prolog programs there is advantage in recomputing some of the independent goals, as opposed to all their solutions being reused. We present an abstract model, called the Composition-Tree, for representing and-or parallelism in Prolog Programs. The Composition-tree closely mirrors sequential Prolog execution by recomputing some independent goals rather than fully re-using them. We also outline two environment representation techniques for And-Or parallel execution of full Prolog based on the Composition-tree model abstraction. We argüe that these techniques have advantages over earlier proposals for exploiting and-or parallelism in Prolog.

Towards execution time estimation in abstract machine-based languages

Abstract machines provide a certain separation between platformdependent and platform-independent concerns in compilation. Many of the differences between architectures are encapsulated in the speciflc abstract machine implementation and the bytecode is left largely architecture independent. Taking advantage of this fact, we present a framework for estimating upper and lower bounds on the execution times of logic programs running on a bytecode-based abstract machine. Our approach includes a one-time, programindependent proflling stage which calculates constants or functions bounding the execution time of each abstract machine instruction. Then, a compile-time cost estimation phase, using the instruction timing information, infers expressions giving platform-dependent upper and lower bounds on actual execution time as functions of input data sizes for each program. Working at the abstract machine level makes it possible to take into account low-level issues in new architectures and platforms by just reexecuting the calibration stage instead of having to tailor the analysis for each architecture and platform. Applications of such predicted execution times include debugging/veriflcation of time properties, certiflcation of time properties in mobile code, granularity control in parallel/distributed computing, and resource-oriented specialization.

Automatic binding-related error diagnosis in logic programs

This paper proposes a diagnosis algorithm for locating a certain kind of errors in logic programs: variable binding errors that result in abstract symptoms during compile-time checking of assertions based on abstract interpretation. The diagnoser analyzes the graph generated by the abstract interpreter, which is a provably safe approximation of the program semantics. The proposed algorithm traverses this graph to find the point where the actual error originates (a reason of the symptom), leading to the point the error has been reported (the symptom). The procedure is fully automatic, not requiring any interaction with the user. A prototype diagnoser has been implemented and preliminary results are encouraging.

User-definable resource bounds analysis for logic programs

We present a static analysis that infers both upper and lower bounds on the usage that a logic program makes of a set of user-definable resources. The inferred bounds will in general be functions of input data sizes. A resource in our approach is a quite general, user-defined notion which associates a basic cost function with elementary operations. The analysis then derives the related (upper- and lower-bound) resource usage functions for all predicates in the program. We also present an assertion language which is used to define both such resources and resourcerelated properties that the system can then check based on the results of the analysis. We have performed some preliminary experiments with some concrete resources such as execution steps, bytes sent or received by an application, number of files left open, number of accesses to a datábase, number of calis to a procedure, number of asserts/retracts, etc. Applications of our analysis include resource consumption verification and debugging (including for mobile code), resource control in parallel/distributed computing, and resource-oriented specialization.

Context-sensitive multivariant assertion checking in modular programs

We propose a modular, assertion-based system for verification and debugging of large logic programs, together with several interesting models for checking assertions statically in modular programs, each with different characteristics and representing different trade-offs. Our proposal is a modular and multivariant extensión of our previously proposed abstract assertion checking model and we also report on its implementation in the CiaoPP system. In our approach, the specification of the program, given by a set of assertions, may be partial, instead of the complete specification required by raditional verification systems. Also, the system can deal with properties which cannot always be determined at compile-time. As a result, the proposed system needs to work with safe approximations: all assertions proved correct are guaranteed to be valid and all errors actual errors. The use of modular, context-sensitive static analyzers also allows us to introduce a new distinction between assertions checked in a particular context or checked in general.

Removing superfluous versions in polyvariant specialization of prolog programs.

Polyvariant specialization allows generating múltiple versions of a procedure, which can then be separately optimized for different uses. Since allowing a high degree of polyvariance often results in more optimized code, polyvariant specializers, such as most partial evaluators, can genérate a large number of versions. This can produce unnecessarily large residual programs. Also, large programs can be slower due to cache miss effects. A possible solution to this problem is to introduce a minimization step which identifies sets of equivalent versions, and replace all occurrences of such versions by a single one. In this work we present a unifying view of the problem of superfluous polyvariance. It includes both partial deduction and abstract múltiple specialization. As regards partial deduction, we extend existing approaches in several ways. First, previous work has dealt with puré logic programs and a very limited class of builtins. Herein we propose an extensión to traditional characteristic trees which can be used in the presence of calis to external predicates. This includes all builtins, librarles, other user modules, etc. Second, we propose the possibility of collapsing versions which are not strictly equivalent. This allows trading time for space and can be useful in the context of embedded and pervasive systems. This is done by residualizing certain computations for external predicates which would otherwise be performed at specialization time. Third, we provide an experimental evaluation of the potential gains achievable using minimization which leads to interesting conclusions.

Experiments in context-sensitive analysis of modular programs

Several models for context-sensitive analysis of modular programs have been proposed, each with different characteristics and representing different trade-offs. The advantage of these context-sensitive analyses is that they provide information which is potentially more accurate than that provided by context-free analyses. Such information can then be applied to validating/debugging the program and/or to specializing the program in order to obtain important performance improvements. Some very preliminary experimental results have also been reported for some of these models which provided initial evidence on their potential. However, further experimentation, which is needed in order to understand the many issues left open and to show that the proposed modes scale and are usable in the context of large, real-life modular programs, was left as future work. The aim of this paper is two-fold. On one hand we provide an empirical comparison of the different models proposed in previous work, as well as experimental data on the different choices left open in those designs. On the other hand we explore the scalability of these models by using larger modular programs as benchmarks. The results have been obtained from a realistic implementation of the models, integrated in a production-quality compiler (CiaoPP/Ciao). Our experimental results shed light on the practical implications of the different design choices and of the models themselves. We also show that contextsensitive analysis of modular programs is indeed feasible in practice, and that in certain critical cases it provides better performance results than those achievable by analyzing the whole program at once, specially in terms of memory consumption and when reanalyzing after making changes to a program, as is often the case during program development.

A generic framework for the analysis and specialization of kogic programs

The relationship between abstract interpretation [2] and partial evaluation [5] has received considerable attention and (partial) integrations have been proposed starting from both the partial deduction (see e.g. [6] and its references) and abstract interpretation perspectives. Abstract interpretation-based analyzers (such as the CiaoPP analyzer [9,4]) generally compute a program analysis graph [1] in order to propagate (abstract) call and success information by performing fixpoint computations when needed. On the other hand, partial deduction methods [7] incorporate powerful techniques for on-line specialization including (concrete) call propagation and unfolding.

Determinacy analysis for logic programs using mode and type information

We propose an analysis for detecting procedures and goals that are deterministic (i.e. that produce at most one solution), or predicates whose clause tests are mutually exclusive (which implies that at most one of their clauses will succeed) even if they are not deterministic (because they cali other predicates that can produce more than one solution). Applications of such determinacy information include detecting programming errors, performing certain high-level program transformations for improving search efñciency, optimizing low level code generation and parallel execution, and estimating tighter upper bounds on the computational costs of goals and data sizes, which can be used for program debugging, resource consumption and granularity control, etc. We have implemented the analysis and integrated it in the CiaoPP system, which also infers automatically the mode and type information that our analysis takes as input. Experiments performed on this implementation show that the analysis is fairly accurate and efncient.