Dynamic Document Generation from Semantic Web Data

This talk will present an overview of the ongoing ERCIM project SMARTDOCS (SeMAntically-cReaTed DOCuments) which aims at automatically generating webpages from RDF data. It will particularly focus on the current issues and the investigated solutions in the different modules of the project, which are related to document planning, natural language generation and multimedia perspectives. The second part of the talk will be dedicated to the KODA annotation system, which is a knowledge-base-agnostic annotator designed to provide the RDF annotations required in the document generation process.

Embedding Semantic Web Data

RDFa JSON-LD Microdata

Information access law and disclosing of information by joint-stock companies in Brazil: open data and Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) standard

The strategic management of information plays a fundamental role in the organizational management process since the decision-making process depend on the need for survival in a highly competitive market. Companies are constantly concerned about information transparency and good practices of corporate governance (CG) which, in turn, directs relations between the controlling power of the company and investors. In this context, this article presents the relationship between the disclosing of information of joint-stock companies by means of using XBRL, the open data model adopted by the Brazilian government, a model that boosted the publication of Information Access Law (Lei de Acesso à Informação), nº 12,527 of 18 November 2011. Information access should be permeated by a mediation policy in order to subsidize the knowledge construction and decision-making of investors. The XBRL is the main model for the publishing of financial information. The use of XBRL by means of new semantic standard created for Linked Data, strengthens the information dissemination, as well as creates analysis mechanisms and cross-referencing of data with different open databases available on the Internet, providing added value to the data/information accessed by civil society.

Conversione per il Semantic Web di dati Turistico-Culturali: il progetto QRPlaces - Semantic Events

Il progetto QRPlaces - Semantic Events, oggetto di questo lavoro, focalizza l’attenzione sull’analisi, la progettazione e l’implementazione di un sistema che sia in grado di modellare i dati, relativi a diversi eventi facenti parte del patrimonio turistico - culturale della Regione Emilia Romagna 1, rendendo evidenti i vantaggi associati ad una rappresentazione formale incentrata sulla Semantica. I dati turistico - culturali sono intesi in questo ambito sia come una rappresentazione di “qualcosa che accade in un certo punto ad un certo momento” (come ad esempio un concerto, una sagra, una raccolta fondi, una rappresentazione teatrale e quant’altro) sia come tradizioni e costumi che costituiscono il patrimonio turistico-culturale e a cui si fa spesso riferimento con il nome di “Cultural Heritage”. Essi hanno la caratteristica intrinseca di richiedere una conoscenza completa di diverse informa- zioni correlata, come informazioni di geo localizzazione relative al luogo fisico che ospita l’evento, dati biografici riferiti all’autore o al soggetto che è presente nell’evento piuttosto che riferirsi ad informazioni che descrivono nel dettaglio tutti gli oggetti, come teatri, cinema, compagnie teatrali che caratterizzano l’evento stesso. Una corretta rappresentazione della conoscenza ad essi legata richiede, pertanto, una modellazione in cui i dati possano essere interconnessi, rivelando un valore informativo che altrimenti resterebbe nascosto. Il lavoro svolto ha avuto lo scopo di realizzare un dataset rispondente alle caratteristiche tipiche del Semantic Web grazie al quale è stato possibile potenziare il circuito di comunicazione e informazione turistica QRPlaces 2. Nello specifico, attraverso la conversione ontologica di dati di vario genere relativi ad eventi dislocati nel territorio, e sfruttando i principi e le tecnologie del Linked Data, si è cercato di ottenere un modello informativo quanto più possibile correlato e arricchito da dati esterni. L’obiettivo finale è stato quello di ottenere una sorgente informativa di dati interconnessi non solo tra loro ma anche con quelli presenti in sorgenti esterne, dando vita ad un percorso di collegamenti in grado di evidenziare una ricchezza informativa utilizzabile per la creazione di valore aggiunto che altrimenti non sarebbe possibile ottenere. Questo aspetto è stato realizzato attraverso un’in- terfaccia di MashUp che utilizza come sorgente il dataset creato e tutti i collegamenti con la rete del Linked Data, in grado di reperire informazioni aggiuntive multi dominio.

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).

Cross-lingual ontology matching as a challenge for the Multilingual Semantic Web

Recently, the Semantic Web has experienced significant advancements in standards and techniques, as well as in the amount of semantic information available online. Nevertheless, mechanisms are still needed to automatically reconcile information when it is expressed in different natural languages on the Web of Data, in order to improve the access to semantic information across language barriers. In this context several challenges arise [1], such as: (i) ontology translation/localization, (ii) cross-lingual ontology mappings, (iii) representation of multilingual lexical information, and (iv) cross-lingual access and querying of linked data. In the following we will focus on the second challenge, which is the necessity of establishing, representing and storing cross-lingual links among semantic information on the Web. In fact, in a “truly” multilingual Semantic Web, semantic data with lexical representations in one natural language would be mapped to equivalent or related information in other languages, thus making navigation across multilingual information possible for software agents.

Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web

Lexica and terminology databases play a vital role in many NLP applications, but currently most such resources are published in application-specific formats, or with custom access interfaces, leading to the problem that much of this data is in ‘‘data silos’’ and hence difficult to access. The Semantic Web and in particular the Linked Data initiative provide effective solutions to this problem, as well as possibilities for data reuse by inter-lexicon linking, and incorporation of data categories by dereferencable URIs. The Semantic Web focuses on the use of ontologies to describe semantics on the Web, but currently there is no standard for providing complex lexical information for such ontologies and for describing the relationship between the lexicon and the ontology. We present our model, lemon, which aims to address these gaps

Collaborative semantic editing of linked data lexica.

The creation of language resources is a time-consuming process requiring the efforts of many people. The use of resources collaboratively created by non-linguists can potentially ameliorate this situation. However, such resources often contain more errors compared to resources created by experts. For the particular case of lexica, we analyse the case of Wiktionary, a resource created along wiki principles and argue that through the use of a principled lexicon model, namely lemon, the resulting data could be better understandable to machines. We then present a platform called lemon source that supports the creation of linked lexical data along the lemon model. This tool builds on the concept of a semantic wiki to enable collaborative editing of the resources by many users concurrently. In this paper, we describe the model, the tool and present an evaluation of its usability based on a small group of users.

A Personal Agent Architecture for Task Automation in the Web of Data. Bringing intelligence to everyday tasks

Internet está evolucionando hacia la conocida como Live Web. En esta nueva etapa en la evolución de Internet, se pone al servicio de los usuarios multitud de streams de datos sociales. Gracias a estas fuentes de datos, los usuarios han pasado de navegar por páginas web estáticas a interacturar con aplicaciones que ofrecen contenido personalizado, basada en sus preferencias. Cada usuario interactúa a diario con multiples aplicaciones que ofrecen notificaciones y alertas, en este sentido cada usuario es una fuente de eventos, y a menudo los usuarios se sienten desbordados y no son capaces de procesar toda esa información a la carta. Para lidiar con esta sobresaturación, han aparecido múltiples herramientas que automatizan las tareas más habituales, desde gestores de bandeja de entrada, gestores de alertas en redes sociales, a complejos CRMs o smart-home hubs. La contrapartida es que aunque ofrecen una solución a problemas comunes, no pueden adaptarse a las necesidades de cada usuario ofreciendo una solucion personalizada. Los Servicios de Automatización de Tareas (TAS de sus siglas en inglés) entraron en escena a partir de 2012 para dar solución a esta liminación. Dada su semejanza, estos servicios también son considerados como un nuevo enfoque en la tecnología de mash-ups pero centra en el usuarios. Los usuarios de estas plataformas tienen la capacidad de interconectar servicios, sensores y otros aparatos con connexión a internet diseñando las automatizaciones que se ajustan a sus necesidades. La propuesta ha sido ámpliamante aceptada por los usuarios. Este hecho ha propiciado multitud de plataformas que ofrecen servicios TAS entren en escena. Al ser un nuevo campo de investigación, esta tesis presenta las principales características de los TAS, describe sus componentes, e identifica las dimensiones fundamentales que los defines y permiten su clasificación. En este trabajo se acuña el termino Servicio de Automatización de Tareas (TAS) dando una descripción formal para estos servicios y sus componentes (llamados canales), y proporciona una arquitectura de referencia. De igual forma, existe una falta de herramientas para describir servicios de automatización, y las reglas de automatización. A este respecto, esta tesis propone un modelo común que se concreta en la ontología EWE (Evented WEb Ontology). Este modelo permite com parar y equiparar canales y automatizaciones de distintos TASs, constituyendo un aporte considerable paraa la portabilidad de automatizaciones de usuarios entre plataformas. De igual manera, dado el carácter semántico del modelo, permite incluir en las automatizaciones elementos de fuentes externas sobre los que razonar, como es el caso de Linked Open Data. Utilizando este modelo, se ha generado un dataset de canales y automatizaciones, con los datos obtenidos de algunos de los TAS existentes en el mercado. Como último paso hacia el lograr un modelo común para describir TAS, se ha desarrollado un algoritmo para aprender ontologías de forma automática a partir de los datos del dataset. De esta forma, se favorece el descubrimiento de nuevos canales, y se reduce el coste de mantenimiento del modelo, el cual se actualiza de forma semi-automática. En conclusión, las principales contribuciones de esta tesis son: i) describir el estado del arte en automatización de tareas y acuñar el término Servicio de Automatización de Tareas, ii) desarrollar una ontología para el modelado de los componentes de TASs y automatizaciones, iii) poblar un dataset de datos de canales y automatizaciones, usado para desarrollar un algoritmo de aprendizaje automatico de ontologías, y iv) diseñar una arquitectura de agentes para la asistencia a usuarios en la creación de automatizaciones. ABSTRACT The new stage in the evolution of the Web (the Live Web or Evented Web) puts lots of social data-streams at the service of users, who no longer browse static web pages but interact with applications that present them contextual and relevant experiences. Given that each user is a potential source of events, a typical user often gets overwhelmed. To deal with that huge amount of data, multiple automation tools have emerged, covering from simple social media managers or notification aggregators to complex CRMs or smart-home Hub/Apps. As a downside, they cannot tailor to the needs of every single user. As a natural response to this downside, Task Automation Services broke in the Internet. They may be seen as a new model of mash-up technology for combining social streams, services and connected devices from an end-user perspective: end-users are empowered to connect those stream however they want, designing the automations they need. The numbers of those platforms that appeared early on shot up, and as a consequence the amount of platforms following this approach is growing fast. Being a novel field, this thesis aims to shed light on it, presenting and exemplifying the main characteristics of Task Automation Services, describing their components, and identifying several dimensions to classify them. This thesis coins the term Task Automation Services (TAS) by providing a formal definition of them, their components (called channels), as well a TAS reference architecture. There is also a lack of tools for describing automation services and automations rules. In this regard, this thesis proposes a theoretical common model of TAS and formalizes it as the EWE ontology This model enables to compare channels and automations from different TASs, which has a high impact in interoperability; and enhances automations providing a mechanism to reason over external sources such as Linked Open Data. Based on this model, a dataset of components of TAS was built, harvesting data from the web sites of actual TASs. Going a step further towards this common model, an algorithm for categorizing them was designed, enabling their discovery across different TAS. Thus, the main contributions of the thesis are: i) surveying the state of the art on task automation and coining the term Task Automation Service; ii) providing a semantic common model for describing TAS components and automations; iii) populating a categorized dataset of TAS components, used to learn ontologies of particular domains from the TAS perspective; and iv) designing an agent architecture for assisting users in setting up automations, that is aware of their context and acts in consequence.

Sierra : cooperative request-response for resource management in disasters using semantic web principles

Disasters cause widespread harm and disrupt the normal functioning of society, and effective management requires the participation and cooperation of many actors. While advances in information and networking technology have made transmission of data easier than it ever has been before, communication and coordination of activities between actors remain exceptionally difficult. This paper employs semantic web technology and Linked Data principles to create a network of intercommunicating and inter-dependent on-line sites for managing resources. Each site publishes available resources openly and a lightweight opendata protocol is used to request and respond to requests for resources between sites in the network.

Un Servizio Web per l'analisi Semantica degli Open Data

Questo lavoro di Tesi ha come obiettivo quello di automatizzare il più possibile la comprensione automatica degli Open Data. Ciò è stato realizzato mediante la progettazione e lo sviluppo del “Semantic Detector”, una soluzione che si interpone tra il dato grezzo, quindi il dataset, e qualsiasi software ad alto livello che sfrutta questi dati per poterli effettivamente riutilizzare o riorganizzare opportunamente in un formato aggregabile.

Culture boundaries in semantic web

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geospatial Technologies.

GI Systems for public health with an ontology based approach

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geospatial Technologies.