Convergência digital para apoio ao ensino de libras, com ênfase na web e no sistema brasileiro de tv digital

Pós-graduação em Ciência da Computação - IBILCE

Uma arquitetura multiagentes para sistema educacional baseado na web semântica

Pós-graduação em Ciência da Computação - IBILCE

Wikis semânticos: da Web para a Web Semântica

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Sistema multiagente web semântico para gestão de conteúdos educacionais

Pós-graduação em Ciência da Computação - IBILCE

White paper sobre Open Source, Open Access, open Standards e o futuro da catalogação

The discussions on the future of cataloging has received increased attention in the last ten years, mainly due to the impact of rapid development of information and communication technologies in the same period, which has provided access to the Web anytime, anywhere. These discussions revolve around the need for a new bibliographic framework to meet the demand of this new reality in the digital environment, ie how libraries can process, store, deliver, share and integrate their collections (physical, digital or scanned), in current post-PC era? Faced with this question, Open Access, Open Source and Open Standards are three concepts that need to receive greater attention in the field of Library and Information Science, as it is believed to be fundamental elements for the change of paradigm of descriptive representation, currently based conceptually on physical item rather than intellectual work. This paper aims to raise and discuss such issues and instigate information professionals, especially librarians, to think, discuss and propose initiatives for such problems, contributing and sharing ideas and possible solutions, in multidisciplinary teams. At the end is suggested the effective creation of multidisciplinary and inter-institutional study groups on the future of cataloging and its impact on national collections, in order to contribute to the area of descriptive representation in national and international level

Attempting to improve standardized test results using Study Islands' web-based mastery program

State standardized testing has always been a tool to measure a school’s performance and to help evaluate school curriculum. However, with the school of choice legislation in 1992, the MEAP test became a measuring stick to grade schools by and a major tool in attracting school of choice students. Now, declining enrollment and a state budget struggling to stay out of the red have made school of choice students more important than ever before. MEAP scores have become the deciding factor in some cases. For the past five years, the Hancock Middle School staff has been working hard to improve their students’ MEAP scores in accordance with President Bush's “No Child Left Behind” legislation. In 2005, the school was awarded a grant that enabled staff to work for two years on writing and working towards school goals that were based on the improvement of MEAP scores in writing and math. As part of this effort, the school purchased an internet-based program geared at giving students practice on state content standards. This study examined the results of efforts by Hancock Middle School to help improve student scores in mathematics on the MEAP test through the use of an online program called “Study Island.” In the past, the program was used to remediate students, and as a review with an incentive at the end of the year for students completing a certain number of objectives. It had also been used as a review before upcoming MEAP testing in the fall. All of these methods may have helped a few students perform at an increased level on their standardized test, but the question remained of whether a sustained use of the program in a classroom setting would increase an understanding of concepts and performance on the MEAP for the masses. This study addressed this question. Student MEAP scores and Study Island data from experimental and comparison groups of students were compared to understand how a sustained use of Study Island in the classroom would impact student test scores on the MEAP. In addition, these data were analyzed to determine whether Study Island results provide a good indicator of students’ MEAP performance. The results of the study suggest that there were limited benefits related to sustained use of Study Island and gave some indications about the effectiveness of the mathematics curriculum at Hancock Middle School. These results and implications for instruction are discussed.

A Web Services architecture for UMLS Knowledge Sources.

A web service is a collection of industry standards to enable reusability of services and interoperability of heterogeneous applications. The UMLS Knowledge Source (UMLSKS) Server provides remote access to the UMLSKS and related resources. We propose a Web Services Architecture that encapsulates UMLSKS-API and makes it available in distributed and heterogeneous environments. This is the first step towards intelligent and automatic UMLS services discovery and invocation by computer systems in distributed environments such as web.

International standards for programmes of training in intensive care medicine in Europe.

PURPOSE To develop internationally harmonised standards for programmes of training in intensive care medicine (ICM). METHODS Standards were developed by using consensus techniques. A nine-member nominal group of European intensive care experts developed a preliminary set of standards. These were revised and refined through a modified Delphi process involving 28 European national coordinators representing national training organisations using a combination of moderated discussion meetings, email, and a Web-based tool for determining the level of agreement with each proposed standard, and whether the standard could be achieved in the respondent's country. RESULTS The nominal group developed an initial set of 52 possible standards which underwent four iterations to achieve maximal consensus. All national coordinators approved a final set of 29 standards in four domains: training centres, training programmes, selection of trainees, and trainers' profiles. Only three standards were considered immediately achievable by all countries, demonstrating a willingness to aspire to quality rather than merely setting a minimum level. Nine proposed standards which did not achieve full consensus were identified as potential candidates for future review. CONCLUSIONS This preliminary set of clearly defined and agreed standards provides a transparent framework for assuring the quality of training programmes, and a foundation for international harmonisation and quality improvement of training in ICM.

A new approach for publishing workflows: abstractions, standards, and linked data

In recent years, a variety of systems have been developed that export the workflows used to analyze data and make them part of published articles. We argue that the workflows that are published in current approaches are dependent on the specific codes used for execution, the specific workflow system used, and the specific workflow catalogs where they are published. In this paper, we describe a new approach that addresses these shortcomings and makes workflows more reusable through: 1) the use of abstract workflows to complement executable workflows to make them reusable when the execution environment is different, 2) the publication of both abstract and executable workflows using standards such as the Open Provenance Model that can be imported by other workflow systems, 3) the publication of workflows as Linked Data that results in open web accessible workflow repositories. We illustrate this approach using a complex workflow that we re-created from an influential publication that describes the generation of 'drugomes'.

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.

Cross-lingual Linking on the Multilingual Web of Data (position statement)

Recently, the Semantic Web has experienced signi�cant advancements in standards and techniques, as well as in the amount of semantic information available online. Even so, mechanisms are still needed to automatically reconcile semantic information when it is expressed in di�erent natural languages, so that access to Web information across language barriers can be improved. That requires developing techniques for discovering and representing cross-lingual links on the Web of Data. In this paper we explore the different dimensions of such a problem and reflect on possible avenues of research on that topic.

What is the current state of the Multilingual Web of Data?

The Semantic Web is growing at a fast pace, recently boosted by the creation of the Linked Data initiative and principles. Methods, standards, techniques and the state of technology are becoming more mature and therefore are easing the task of publication and consumption of semantic information on the Web.

Semantic Service Discovery Techniques for the composable web

This PhD thesis contributes to the problem of resource and service discovery in the context of the composable web. In the current web, mashup technologies allow developers reusing services and contents to build new web applications. However, developers face a problem of information flood when searching for appropriate services or resources for their combination. To contribute to overcoming this problem, a framework is defined for the discovery of services and resources. In this framework, three levels are defined for performing discovery at content, discovery and agente levels. The content level involves the information available in web resources. The web follows the Representational Stateless Transfer (REST) architectural style, in which resources are returned as representations from servers to clients. These representations usually employ the HyperText Markup Language (HTML), which, along with Content Style Sheets (CSS), describes the markup employed to render representations in a web browser. Although the use of SemanticWeb standards such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) make this architecture suitable for automatic processes to use the information present in web resources, these standards are too often not employed, so automation must rely on processing HTML. This process, often referred as Screen Scraping in the literature, is the content discovery according to the proposed framework. At this level, discovery rules indicate how the different pieces of data in resources’ representations are mapped onto semantic entities. By processing discovery rules on web resources, semantically described contents can be obtained out of them. The service level involves the operations that can be performed on the web. The current web allows users to perform different tasks such as search, blogging, e-commerce, or social networking. To describe the possible services in RESTful architectures, a high-level feature-oriented service methodology is proposed at this level. This lightweight description framework allows defining service discovery rules to identify operations in interactions with REST resources. The discovery is thus performed by applying discovery rules to contents discovered in REST interactions, in a novel process called service probing. Also, service discovery can be performed by modelling services as contents, i.e., by retrieving Application Programming Interface (API) documentation and API listings in service registries such as ProgrammableWeb. For this, a unified model for composable components in Mashup-Driven Development (MDD) has been defined after the analysis of service repositories from the web. The agent level involves the orchestration of the discovery of services and contents. At this level, agent rules allow to specify behaviours for crawling and executing services, which results in the fulfilment of a high-level goal. Agent rules are plans that allow introspecting the discovered data and services from the web and the knowledge present in service and content discovery rules to anticipate the contents and services to be found on specific resources from the web. By the definition of plans, an agent can be configured to target specific resources. The discovery framework has been evaluated on different scenarios, each one covering different levels of the framework. Contenidos a la Carta project deals with the mashing-up of news from electronic newspapers, and the framework was used for the discovery and extraction of pieces of news from the web. Similarly, in Resulta and VulneraNET projects the discovery of ideas and security knowledge in the web is covered, respectively. The service level is covered in the OMELETTE project, where mashup components such as services and widgets are discovered from component repositories from the web. The agent level is applied to the crawling of services and news in these scenarios, highlighting how the semantic description of rules and extracted data can provide complex behaviours and orchestrations of tasks in the web. The main contributions of the thesis are the unified framework for discovery, which allows configuring agents to perform automated tasks. Also, a scraping ontology has been defined for the construction of mappings for scraping web resources. A novel first-order logic rule induction algorithm is defined for the automated construction and maintenance of these mappings out of the visual information in web resources. Additionally, a common unified model for the discovery of services is defined, which allows sharing service descriptions. Future work comprises the further extension of service probing, resource ranking, the extension of the Scraping Ontology, extensions of the agent model, and contructing a base of discovery rules. Resumen La presente tesis doctoral contribuye al problema de descubrimiento de servicios y recursos en el contexto de la web combinable. En la web actual, las tecnologías de combinación de aplicaciones permiten a los desarrolladores reutilizar servicios y contenidos para construir nuevas aplicaciones web. Pese a todo, los desarrolladores afrontan un problema de saturación de información a la hora de buscar servicios o recursos apropiados para su combinación. Para contribuir a la solución de este problema, se propone un marco de trabajo para el descubrimiento de servicios y recursos. En este marco, se definen tres capas sobre las que se realiza descubrimiento a nivel de contenido, servicio y agente. El nivel de contenido involucra a la información disponible en recursos web. La web sigue el estilo arquitectónico Representational Stateless Transfer (REST), en el que los recursos son devueltos como representaciones por parte de los servidores a los clientes. Estas representaciones normalmente emplean el lenguaje de marcado HyperText Markup Language (HTML), que, unido al estándar Content Style Sheets (CSS), describe el marcado empleado para mostrar representaciones en un navegador web. Aunque el uso de estándares de la web semántica como Resource Description Framework (RDF) hace apta esta arquitectura para su uso por procesos automatizados, estos estándares no son empleados en muchas ocasiones, por lo que cualquier automatización debe basarse en el procesado del marcado HTML. Este proceso, normalmente conocido como Screen Scraping en la literatura, es el descubrimiento de contenidos en el marco de trabajo propuesto. En este nivel, un conjunto de reglas de descubrimiento indican cómo los diferentes datos en las representaciones de recursos se corresponden con entidades semánticas. Al procesar estas reglas sobre recursos web, pueden obtenerse contenidos descritos semánticamente. El nivel de servicio involucra las operaciones que pueden ser llevadas a cabo en la web. Actualmente, los usuarios de la web pueden realizar diversas tareas como búsqueda, blogging, comercio electrónico o redes sociales. Para describir los posibles servicios en arquitecturas REST, se propone en este nivel una metodología de alto nivel para descubrimiento de servicios orientada a funcionalidades. Este marco de descubrimiento ligero permite definir reglas de descubrimiento de servicios para identificar operaciones en interacciones con recursos REST. Este descubrimiento es por tanto llevado a cabo al aplicar las reglas de descubrimiento sobre contenidos descubiertos en interacciones REST, en un nuevo procedimiento llamado sondeo de servicios. Además, el descubrimiento de servicios puede ser llevado a cabo mediante el modelado de servicios como contenidos. Es decir, mediante la recuperación de documentación de Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) y listas de APIs en registros de servicios como ProgrammableWeb. Para ello, se ha definido un modelo unificado de componentes combinables para Mashup-Driven Development (MDD) tras el análisis de repositorios de servicios de la web. El nivel de agente involucra la orquestación del descubrimiento de servicios y contenidos. En este nivel, las reglas de nivel de agente permiten especificar comportamientos para el rastreo y ejecución de servicios, lo que permite la consecución de metas de mayor nivel. Las reglas de los agentes son planes que permiten la introspección sobre los datos y servicios descubiertos, así como sobre el conocimiento presente en las reglas de descubrimiento de servicios y contenidos para anticipar contenidos y servicios por encontrar en recursos específicos de la web. Mediante la definición de planes, un agente puede ser configurado para descubrir recursos específicos. El marco de descubrimiento ha sido evaluado sobre diferentes escenarios, cada uno cubriendo distintos niveles del marco. El proyecto Contenidos a la Carta trata de la combinación de noticias de periódicos digitales, y en él el framework se ha empleado para el descubrimiento y extracción de noticias de la web. De manera análoga, en los proyectos Resulta y VulneraNET se ha llevado a cabo un descubrimiento de ideas y de conocimientos de seguridad, respectivamente. El nivel de servicio se cubre en el proyecto OMELETTE, en el que componentes combinables como servicios y widgets se descubren en repositorios de componentes de la web. El nivel de agente se aplica al rastreo de servicios y noticias en estos escenarios, mostrando cómo la descripción semántica de reglas y datos extraídos permiten proporcionar comportamientos complejos y orquestaciones de tareas en la web. Las principales contribuciones de la tesis son el marco de trabajo unificado para descubrimiento, que permite configurar agentes para realizar tareas automatizadas. Además, una ontología de extracción ha sido definida para la construcción de correspondencias y extraer información de recursos web. Asimismo, un algoritmo para la inducción de reglas de lógica de primer orden se ha definido para la construcción y el mantenimiento de estas correspondencias a partir de la información visual de recursos web. Adicionalmente, se ha definido un modelo común y unificado para el descubrimiento de servicios que permite la compartición de descripciones de servicios. Como trabajos futuros se considera la extensión del sondeo de servicios, clasificación de recursos, extensión de la ontología de extracción y la construcción de una base de reglas de descubrimiento.

Onyx: describing emotions on the web of data

There are several different standardised and widespread formats to represent emotions. However, there is no standard semantic model yet. This paper presents a new ontology, called Onyx, that aims to become such a standard while adding concepts from the latest Semantic Web models. In particular, the ontology focuses on the representation of Emotion Analysis results. But the model is abstract and inherits from previous standards and formats. It can thus be used as a reference representation of emotions in any future application or ontology. To prove this, we have translated resources from EmotionML representation to Onyx. We also present several ways in which developers could benefit from using this ontology instead of an ad-hoc presentation. Our ultimate goal is to foster the use of semantic technologies for emotion Analysis while following the Linked Data ideals.