Proposal for the Management of temporal and semantic components of Geographic Information

This poster raises the issue of a research work oriented to the storage, retrieval, representation and analysis of dynamic GI, taking into account The ultimate objective is the modelling and representation of the dynamic nature of geographic features, establishing mechanisms to store geometries enriched with a temporal structure (regardless of space) and a set of semantic descriptors detailing and clarifying the nature of the represented features and their temporality. the semantic, the temporal and the spatiotemporal components. We intend to define a set of methods, rules and restrictions for the adequate integration of these components into the primary elements of the GI: theme, location, time [1]. We intend to establish and incorporate three new structures (layers) into the core of data storage by using mark-up languages: a semantictemporal structure, a geosemantic structure, and an incremental spatiotemporal structure. Thus, data would be provided with the capability of pinpointing and expressing their own basic and temporal characteristics, enabling them to interact each other according to their context, and their time and meaning relationships that could be eventually established

Cloud Computing Service for Managing Large Medical Image Data-Sets Using Balanced Collaborative Agents

Managing large medical image collections is an increasingly demanding important issue in many hospitals and other medical settings. A huge amount of this information is daily generated, which requires robust and agile systems. In this paper we present a distributed multi-agent system capable of managing very large medical image datasets. In this approach, agents extract low-level information from images and store them in a data structure implemented in a relational database. The data structure can also store semantic information related to images and particular regions. A distinctive aspect of our work is that a single image can be divided so that the resultant sub-images can be stored and managed separately by different agents to improve performance in data accessing and processing. The system also offers the possibility of applying some region-based operations and filters on images, facilitating image classification. These operations can be performed directly on data structures in the database.

Infrastructure and Workflow for the Formal Evaluation of Semantic Search Technologies

This paper describes an infrastructure for the automated evaluation of semantic technologies and, in particular, semantic search technologies. For this purpose, we present an evaluation framework which follows a service-oriented approach for evaluating semantic technologies and uses the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) to define evaluation workflows that can be executed by process engines. This framework supports a variety of evaluations, from different semantic areas, including search, and is extendible to new evaluations. We show how BPEL addresses this diversity as well as how it is used to solve specific challenges such as heterogeneity, error handling and reuse

Proposal for the Management of temporal and semantic components of Geographic Information

This poster raises the issue of a research work oriented to the storage, retrieval, representation and analysis of dynamic GI, taking into account the semantic, the temporal and the spatiotemporal components. We intend to define a set of methods, rules and restrictions for the adequate integration of these components into the primary elements of the GI: theme, location, time [1]. We intend to establish and incorporate three new structures (layers) into the core of data storage by using mark-up languages: a semantictemporal structure, a geosemantic structure, and an incremental spatiotemporal structure. The ultimate objective is the modelling and representation of the dynamic nature of geographic features, establishing mechanisms to store geometries enriched with a temporal structure (regardless of space) and a set of semantic descriptors detailing and clarifying the nature of the represented features and their temporality. Thus, data would be provided with the capability of pinpointing and expressing their own basic and temporal characteristics, enabling them to interact each other according to their context, and their time and meaning relationships that could be eventually established

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).

Semantic middleware development for the Internet of Things

After the extraordinary spread of the World Wide Web during the last fifteen years, engineers and developers are pushing now the Internet to its next border. A new conception in computer science and networks communication has been burgeoning during roughly the last decade: a world where most of the computers of the future will be extremely downsized, to the point that they will look like dust at its most advanced prototypes. In this vision, every single element of our “real” world has an intelligent tag that carries all their relevant data, effectively mapping the “real” world into a “virtual” one, where all the electronically augmented objects are present, can interact among them and influence with their behaviour that of the other objects, or even the behaviour of a final human user. This is the vision of the Internet of the Future, which also draws ideas of several novel tendencies in computer science and networking, as pervasive computing and the Internet of Things. As it has happened before, materializing a new paradigm that changes the way entities interrelate in this new environment has proved to be a goal full of challenges in the way. Right now the situation is exciting, with a plethora of new developments, proposals and models sprouting every time, often in an uncoordinated, decentralised manner away from any standardization, resembling somehow the status quo of the first developments of advanced computer networking, back in the 60s and the 70s. Usually, a system designed after the Internet of the Future will consist of one or several final user devices attached to these final users, a network –often a Wireless Sensor Network- charged with the task of collecting data for the final user devices, and sometimes a base station sending the data for its further processing to less hardware-constrained computers. When implementing a system designed with the Internet of the Future as a pattern, issues, and more specifically, limitations, that must be faced are numerous: lack of standards for platforms and protocols, processing bottlenecks, low battery lifetime, etc. One of the main objectives of this project is presenting a functional model of how a system based on the paradigms linked to the Internet of the Future works, overcoming some of the difficulties that can be expected and showing a model for a middleware architecture specifically designed for a pervasive, ubiquitous system. This Final Degree Dissertation is divided into several parts. Beginning with an Introduction to the main topics and concepts of this new model, a State of the Art is offered so as to provide a technological background. After that, an example of a semantic and service-oriented middleware is shown; later, a system built by means of this semantic and service-oriented middleware, and other components, is developed, justifying its placement in a particular scenario, describing it and analysing the data obtained from it. Finally, the conclusions inferred from this system and future works that would be good to be tackled are mentioned as well. RESUMEN Tras el extraordinario desarrollo de la Web durante los últimos quince años, ingenieros y desarrolladores empujan Internet hacia su siguiente frontera. Una nueva concepción en la computación y la comunicación a través de las redes ha estado floreciendo durante la última década; un mundo donde la mayoría de los ordenadores del futuro serán extremadamente reducidas de tamaño, hasta el punto que parecerán polvo en sus más avanzado prototipos. En esta visión, cada uno de los elementos de nuestro mundo “real” tiene una etiqueta inteligente que porta sus datos relevantes, mapeando de manera efectiva el mundo “real” en uno “virtual”, donde todos los objetos electrónicamente aumentados están presentes, pueden interactuar entre ellos e influenciar con su comportamiento el de los otros, o incluso el comportamiento del usuario final humano. Ésta es la visión del Internet del Futuro, que también toma ideas de varias tendencias nuevas en las ciencias de la computación y las redes de ordenadores, como la computación omnipresente y el Internet de las Cosas. Como ha sucedido antes, materializar un nuevo paradigma que cambia la manera en que las entidades se interrelacionan en este nuevo entorno ha demostrado ser una meta llena de retos en el camino. Ahora mismo la situación es emocionante, con una plétora de nuevos desarrollos, propuestas y modelos brotando todo el rato, a menudo de una manera descoordinada y descentralizada lejos de cualquier estandarización, recordando de alguna manera el estado de cosas de los primeros desarrollos de redes de ordenadores avanzadas, allá por los años 60 y 70. Normalmente, un sistema diseñado con el Internet del futuro como modelo consistirá en uno o varios dispositivos para usuario final sujetos a estos usuarios finales, una red –a menudo, una red de sensores inalámbricos- encargada de recolectar datos para los dispositivos de usuario final, y a veces una estación base enviando los datos para su consiguiente procesado en ordenadores menos limitados en hardware. Al implementar un sistema diseñado con el Internet del futuro como patrón, los problemas, y más específicamente, las limitaciones que deben enfrentarse son numerosas: falta de estándares para plataformas y protocolos, cuellos de botella en el procesado, bajo tiempo de vida de las baterías, etc. Uno de los principales objetivos de este Proyecto Fin de Carrera es presentar un modelo funcional de cómo trabaja un sistema basado en los paradigmas relacionados al Internet del futuro, superando algunas de las dificultades que pueden esperarse y mostrando un modelo de una arquitectura middleware específicamente diseñado para un sistema omnipresente y ubicuo. Este Proyecto Fin de Carrera está dividido en varias partes. Empezando por una introducción a los principales temas y conceptos de este modelo, un estado del arte es ofrecido para proveer un trasfondo tecnológico. Después de eso, se muestra un ejemplo de middleware semántico orientado a servicios; después, se desarrolla un sistema construido por medio de este middleware semántico orientado a servicios, justificando su localización en un escenario particular, describiéndolo y analizando los datos obtenidos de él. Finalmente, las conclusiones extraídas de este sistema y las futuras tareas que sería bueno tratar también son mencionadas.

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.

Towards data-aware cost-driven adaptation for service orchestrations.

Several activities in service oriented computing, such as automatic composition, monitoring, and adaptation, can benefit from knowing properties of a given service composition before executing them. Among these properties we will focus on those related to execution cost and resource usage, in a wide sense, as they can be linked to QoS characteristics. In order to attain more accuracy, we formulate execution costs / resource usage as functions on input data (or appropriate abstractions thereof) and show how these functions can be used to make better, more informed decisions when performing composition, adaptation, and proactive monitoring. We present an approach to, on one hand, synthesizing these functions in an automatic fashion from the definition of the different orchestrations taking part in a system and, on the other hand, to effectively using them to reduce the overall costs of non-trivial service-based systems featuring sensitivity to data and possibility of failure. We validate our approach by means of simulations of scenarios needing runtime selection of services and adaptation due to service failure. A number of rebinding strategies, including the use of cost functions, are compared.

Ontology-based access to sensor data streams

Sensor networks are increasingly becoming one of the main sources of Big Data on the Web. However, the observations that they produce are made available with heterogeneous schemas, vocabularies and data formats, making it difficult to share and reuse these data for other purposes than those for which they were originally set up. In this thesis we address these challenges, considering how we can transform streaming raw data to rich ontology-based information that is accessible through continuous queries for streaming data. Our main contribution is an ontology-based approach for providing data access and query capabilities to streaming data sources, allowing users to express their needs at a conceptual level, independent of implementation and language-specific details. We introduce novel query rewriting and data translation techniques that rely on mapping definitions relating streaming data models to ontological concepts. Specific contributions include: • The syntax and semantics of the SPARQLStream query language for ontologybased data access, and a query rewriting approach for transforming SPARQLStream queries into streaming algebra expressions. • The design of an ontology-based streaming data access engine that can internally reuse an existing data stream engine, complex event processor or sensor middleware, using R2RML mappings for defining relationships between streaming data models and ontology concepts. Concerning the sensor metadata of such streaming data sources, we have investigated how we can use raw measurements to characterize streaming data, producing enriched data descriptions in terms of ontological models. Our specific contributions are: • A representation of sensor data time series that captures gradient information that is useful to characterize types of sensor data. • A method for classifying sensor data time series and determining the type of data, using data mining techniques, and a method for extracting semantic sensor metadata features from the time series.

A Keyword-driven approach for generating OWL DL conformance test data

The conformance of semantic technologies has to be systematically evaluated to measure and verify the real adherence of these technologies to the Semantic Web standards. Currente valuations of semantic technology conformance are not exhaustive enough and do not directly cover user requirements and use scenarios, which raises the need for a simple, extensible and parameterizable method to generate test data for such evaluations. To address this need, this paper presents a keyword-driven approach for generating ontology language conformance test data that can be used to evaluate semantic technologies, details the definition of a test suite for evaluating OWL DL conformance using this approach,and describes the use and extension of this test suite during the evaluation of some tools.

SRBench: A streaming RDF/SPARQL benchmark

We introduce SRBench, a general-purpose benchmark primarily designed for streaming RDF/SPARQL engines, completely based on real-world data sets from the Linked Open Data cloud. With the increasing problem of too much streaming data but not enough tools to gain knowledge from them, researchers have set out for solutions in which Semantic Web technologies are adapted and extended for publishing, sharing, analysing and understanding streaming data. To help researchers and users comparing streaming RDF/SPARQL (strRS) engines in a standardised application scenario, we have designed SRBench, with which one can assess the abilities of a strRS engine to cope with a broad range of use cases typically encountered in real-world scenarios. The data sets used in the benchmark have been carefully chosen, such that they represent a realistic and relevant usage of streaming data. The benchmark defines a concise, yet omprehensive set of queries that cover the major aspects of strRS processing. Finally, our work is complemented with a functional evaluation on three representative strRS engines: SPARQLStream, C-SPARQL and CQELS. The presented results are meant to give a first baseline and illustrate the state-of-the-art.

Demo paper: tablet-based visualization of transportation data in Madrid using SPARQLStream

In this demo paper we describe an iOS-based application that allows visualizing live bus transport data in Madrid from static and streaming RDF endpoints, reusing the Web services provided by the bus transport authority in the city and wrapping them using SPARQLStream

A scalable approach for content based image retrieval in cloud datacenter

The emergence of cloud datacenters enhances the capability of online data storage. Since massive data is stored in datacenters, it is necessary to effectively locate and access interest data in such a distributed system. However, traditional search techniques only allow users to search images over exact-match keywords through a centralized index. These techniques cannot satisfy the requirements of content based image retrieval (CBIR). In this paper, we propose a scalable image retrieval framework which can efficiently support content similarity search and semantic search in the distributed environment. Its key idea is to integrate image feature vectors into distributed hash tables (DHTs) by exploiting the property of locality sensitive hashing (LSH). Thus, images with similar content are most likely gathered into the same node without the knowledge of any global information. For searching semantically close images, the relevance feedback is adopted in our system to overcome the gap between low-level features and high-level features. We show that our approach yields high recall rate with good load balance and only requires a few number of hops.

A cyber-physical approach to combined HW-SW monitoring for improving energy efficiency in data centers

High-Performance Computing, Cloud computing and next-generation applications such e-Health or Smart Cities have dramatically increased the computational demand of Data Centers. The huge energy consumption, increasing levels of CO2 and the economic costs of these facilities represent a challenge for industry and researchers alike. Recent research trends propose the usage of holistic optimization techniques to jointly minimize Data Center computational and cooling costs from a multilevel perspective. This paper presents an analysis on the parameters needed to integrate the Data Center in a holistic optimization framework and leverages the usage of Cyber-Physical systems to gather workload, server and environmental data via software techniques and by deploying a non-intrusive Wireless Sensor Net- work (WSN). This solution tackles data sampling, retrieval and storage from a reconfigurable perspective, reducing the amount of data generated for optimization by a 68% without information loss, doubling the lifetime of the WSN nodes and allowing runtime energy minimization techniques in a real scenario.

Structuring research methods and data with the research object model: genomics workflows as a case study

Background: One of the main challenges for biomedical research lies in the computer-assisted integrative study of large and increasingly complex combinations of data in order to understand molecular mechanisms. The preservation of the materials and methods of such computational experiments with clear annotations is essential for understanding an experiment, and this is increasingly recognized in the bioinformatics community. Our assumption is that offering means of digital, structured aggregation and annotation of the objects of an experiment will provide necessary meta-data for a scientist to understand and recreate the results of an experiment. To support this we explored a model for the semantic description of a workflow-centric Research Object (RO), where an RO is defined as a resource that aggregates other resources, e.g., datasets, software, spreadsheets, text, etc. We applied this model to a case study where we analysed human metabolite variation by workflows. Results: We present the application of the workflow-centric RO model for our bioinformatics case study. Three workflows were produced following recently defined Best Practices for workflow design. By modelling the experiment as an RO, we were able to automatically query the experiment and answer questions such as “which particular data was input to a particular workflow to test a particular hypothesis?”, and “which particular conclusions were drawn from a particular workflow?”. Conclusions: Applying a workflow-centric RO model to aggregate and annotate the resources used in a bioinformatics experiment, allowed us to retrieve the conclusions of the experiment in the context of the driving hypothesis, the executed workflows and their input data. The RO model is an extendable reference model that can be used by other systems as well.