Experiment: Dissecting the impact of CO2 and pH on the mechanisms of photosynthesis and calcification in the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi

Coccolithophores are important calcifying phytoplankton predicted to be impacted by changes in ocean carbonate chemistry caused by the absorption of anthropogenic CO2. However, it is difficult to disentangle the effects of the simultaneously changing carbonate system parameters (CO2, bicarbonate, carbonate and protons) on the physiological responses to elevated CO2. Here, we adopted a multifactorial approach at constant pH or CO2 whilst varying dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) to determine physiological and transcriptional responses to individual carbonate system parameters. We show that Emiliania huxleyi is sensitive to low CO2 (growth and photosynthesis) and low bicarbonate (calcification) as well as low pH beyond a limited tolerance range, but is much less sensitive to elevated CO2 and bicarbonate. Multiple up-regulated genes at low DIC bear the hallmarks of a carbon-concentrating mechanism (CCM) that is responsive to CO2 and bicarbonate but not to pH. Emiliania huxleyi appears to have evolved mechanisms to respond to limiting rather than elevated CO2. Calcification does not function as a CCM, but is inhibited at low DIC to allow the redistribution of DIC from calcification to photosynthesis. The presented data provides a significant step in understanding how E. huxleyi will respond to changing carbonate chemistry at a cellular level

Climate change technology transfer to developing countries: evidence analysis and policy recommendations

Developing countries are experiencing unprecedented levels of economic growth. As a result, they will be responsible for most of the future growth in energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Curbing GHG emissions in developing countries has become one of the cornerstones of a future international agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, setting caps for developing countries’ GHG emissions has encountered strong resistance in the current round of negotiations. Continued economic growth that allows poverty eradication is still the main priority for most developing countries, and caps are perceived as a constraint to future growth prospects. The development, transfer and use of low-carbon technologies have more positive connotations, and are seen as the potential path towards low-carbon development. So far, the success of the UNFCCC process in improving the levels of technology transfer (TT) to developing countries has been limited. This thesis analyses the causes for such limited success and seeks to improve on the understanding about what constitutes TT in the field of climate change, establish the factors that enable them in developing countries and determine which policies could be implemented to reinforce these factors. Despite the wide recognition of the importance of technology and knowledge transfer to developing countries in the climate change mitigation policy agenda, this issue has not received sufficient attention in academic research. Current definitions of climate change TT barely take into account the perspective of actors involved in actual climate change TT activities, while respective measurements do not bear in mind the diversity of channels through which these happen and the outputs and effects that they convey. Furthermore, the enabling factors for TT in non-BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) developing countries have been seldom investigated, and policy recommendations to improve the level and quality of TTs to developing countries have not been adapted to the specific needs of highly heterogeneous countries, commonly denominated as “developing countries”. This thesis contributes to enriching the climate change TT debate from the perspective of a smaller emerging economy (Chile) and by undertaking a quantitative analysis of enabling factors for TT in a large sample of developing countries. Two methodological approaches are used to study climate change TT: comparative case study analysis and quantitative analysis. Comparative case studies analyse TT processes in ten cases based in Chile, all of which share the same economic, technological and policy frameworks, thus enabling us to draw conclusions on the enabling factors and obstacles operating in TT processes. The quantitative analysis uses three methodologies – principal component analysis, multiple regression analysis and cluster analysis – to assess the performance of developing countries in a number of enabling factors and the relationship between these factors and indicators of TT, as well as to create groups of developing countries with similar performances. The findings of this thesis are structured to provide responses to four main research questions: What constitutes technology transfer and how does it happen? Is it possible to measure technology transfer, and what are the main challenges in doing so? Which factors enable climate change technology transfer to developing countries? And how do different developing countries perform in these enabling factors, and how can differentiated policy priorities be defined accordingly? vi Resumen Los paises en desarrollo estan experimentando niveles de crecimiento economico sin precedentes. Como consecuencia, se espera que sean responsables de la mayor parte del futuro crecimiento global en demanda energetica y emisiones de Gases de Efecto de Invernadero (GEI). Reducir las emisiones de GEI en los paises en desarrollo es por tanto uno de los pilares de un futuro acuerdo internacional en el marco de la Convencion Marco de las Naciones Unidas para el Cambio Climatico (UNFCCC). La posibilidad de compromisos vinculantes de reduccion de emisiones de GEI ha sido rechazada por los paises en desarrollo, que perciben estos limites como frenos a su desarrollo economico y a su prioridad principal de erradicacion de la pobreza. El desarrollo, transferencia y uso de tecnologias bajas en carbono tiene connotaciones mas positivas y se percibe como la via hacia un crecimiento bajo en carbono. Hasta el momento, la UNFCCC ha tenido un exito limitado en la promocion de transferencias de tecnologia (TT) a paises en desarrollo. Esta tesis analiza las causas de este resultado y busca mejorar la comprension sobre que constituye transferencia de tecnologia en el area de cambio climatico, cuales son los factores que la facilitan en paises en desarrollo y que politicas podrian implementarse para reforzar dichos factores. A pesar del extendido reconocimiento sobre la importancia de la transferencia de tecnologia a paises en desarrollo en la agenda politica de cambio climatico, esta cuestion no ha sido suficientemente atendida por la investigacion existente. Las definiciones actuales de transferencia de tecnologia relacionada con la mitigacion del cambio climatico no tienen en cuenta la diversidad de canales por las que se manifiestan o los efectos que consiguen. Los factores facilitadores de TT en paises en desarrollo no BRIC (Brasil, Rusia, India y China) apenas han sido investigados, y las recomendaciones politicas para aumentar el nivel y la calidad de la TT no se han adaptado a las necesidades especificas de paises muy heterogeneos aglutinados bajo el denominado grupo de "paises en desarrollo". Esta tesis contribuye a enriquecer el debate sobre la TT de cambio climatico con la perspectiva de una economia emergente de pequeno tamano (Chile) y el analisis cuantitativo de factores que facilitan la TT en una amplia muestra de paises en desarrollo. Se utilizan dos metodologias para el estudio de la TT a paises en desarrollo: analisis comparativo de casos de estudio y analisis cuantitativo basado en metodos multivariantes. Los casos de estudio analizan procesos de TT en diez casos basados en Chile, para derivar conclusiones sobre los factores que facilitan u obstaculizan el proceso de transferencia. El analisis cuantitativo multivariante utiliza tres metodologias: regresion multiple, analisis de componentes principales y analisis cluster. Con dichas metodologias se busca analizar el posicionamiento de diversos paises en cuanto a factores que facilitan la TT; las relaciones entre dichos factores e indicadores de transferencia tecnologica; y crear grupos de paises con caracteristicas similares que podrian beneficiarse de politicas similares para la promocion de la transferencia de tecnologia. Los resultados de la tesis se estructuran en torno a cuatro preguntas de investigacion: .Que es la transferencia de tecnologia y como ocurre?; .Es posible medir la transferencia de tecnologias de bajo carbono?; .Que factores facilitan la transferencia de tecnologias de bajo carbono a paises en desarrollo? y .Como se puede agrupar a los paises en desarrollo en funcion de sus necesidades politicas para la promocion de la transferencia de tecnologias de bajo carbono?

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).

Plant regeneration from an endangered valuable cork oak tree by somatic embryogenesis.

Among the several applications of in vitro tissue culture techniques, the conservation of plant germplasm is one of the most widely used. The cork oak is one of the principal tree species in the Western Mediterranean región. Within this área, the Balearic Islands are considered to be a glacial refuge, and therefore a reservoir of genetic resources. A singular tree has been found in the small Minorca Island population. The haplotype of this tree is of Tyrrhenian origin, showing a past link between Minorca and Sardinia. Moreover, this tree do not bear a deletion within an ITS from ribosimic nuclear DNA, which is fairly common in many populations of this species, and indicates that ir may be the descendant of a very ancient population. This tree is currently in a precarious condition, and it has not produced acorns in the last years. Hence there is a clear need of vegetative propagation to conserve this genotype. We have previously developed methods to clone adult cork oak tres by somatic embryogenesis, and therefore the aim of the present work was to clone this singular tree. There braches from the corwn were collected in November 2004, and methods previously described were carried out. By February 2005 somatic embryogenesis was obtained from leaves of the tree with percentages on induction ranging from 17 to 54% depending on the branch, which may show a novel source of variation that requires further study. Spontaneously matured somatic embryos germinated at 46% in average, and the first somatic seedlings from the Alfavaret's cork oak tree were obtained. Therefore, this study shows one of the most relevant applications of somatic embryogenesis: the plant regeneration of valuable genotypes for the in situ and ex situ conservation of forest genetic resources.

Three dimensional (3D) microstructure-based modeling of interfacial decohesion in particle reinforced metal matrix composites

Modeling and prediction of the overall elastic–plastic response and local damage mechanisms in heterogeneous materials, in particular particle reinforced composites, is a very complex problem. Microstructural complexities such as the inhomogeneous spatial distribution of particles, irregular morphology of the particles, and anisotropy in particle orientation after secondary processing, such as extrusion, significantly affect deformation behavior. We have studied the effect of particle/matrix interface debonding in SiC particle reinforced Al alloy matrix composites with (a) actual microstructure consisting of angular SiC particles and (b) idealized ellipsoidal SiC particles. Tensile deformation in SiC particle reinforced Al matrix composites was modeled using actual microstructures reconstructed from serial sectioning approach. Interfacial debonding was modeled using user-defined cohesive zone elements. Modeling with the actual microstructure (versus idealized ellipsoids) has a significant influence on: (a) localized stresses and strains in particle and matrix, and (b) far-field strain at which localized debonding takes place. The angular particles exhibited higher degree of load transfer and are more sensitive to interfacial debonding. Larger decreases in stress are observed in the angular particles, because of the flat surfaces, normal to the loading axis, which bear load. Furthermore, simplification of particle morphology may lead to erroneous results.

Forest Biodiversity Assessment in Peruvian Andean Montane Cloud Forest

Cloud forests are unusual and fragile habitats, being one of the least studied and least understood ecosystems. The tropical Andean dominion is considered one of the most significant places in the world as rega rds biological diversity, with a very high level of endemism. The biodiversity was analysed in an isolated remnant area of a tropical montane cloud forest known as the ?Bosque de Neblina de Cuyas?, in the North of the Peruvian Andean range. Composition, structure and dead wood were measured or estimated. The values obtained were compared with other cloud forests. The study revealed a high level of forest biodiversity, although the level of biodiversity differs from one area to another: in the inner areas, where human pressure is almost inexistent, the biodiversity values increase. The high species richness and the low dominance among species bear testimony to this montane cloud forest as a real enclave of biodiversity.