Context Aware e-Learning Objects and their Types from the Perspective of the Object-Oriented Paradigm

The contribution of this article demonstrates how to identify context-aware types of e-Learning objects (eLOs) derived from the subject domains. This perspective is taken from an engineering point of view and is applied during requirements elicitation and analysis relating to present work in constructing an object-oriented (OO), dynamic, and adaptive model to build and deliver packaged e-Learning courses. Consequently, three preliminary subject domains are presented and, as a result, three primitive types of eLOs are posited. These types educed from the subject domains are of structural, conceptual, and granular nature. Structural objects are responsible for the course itself, conceptual objects incorporate adaptive and logical interoperability, while granular objects congregate granular assets. Their differences, interrelationships, and responsibilities are discussed. A major design challenge relates to adaptive behaviour. Future research addresses refinement on the subject domains and adaptive hypermedia systems.

Carbohydrate Estimation by a Mobile Phone-Based System Versus Self-Estimations of Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Comparative Study

Background: Diabetes mellitus is spreading throughout the world and diabetic individuals have been shown to often assess their food intake inaccurately; therefore, it is a matter of urgency to develop automated diet assessment tools. The recent availability of mobile phones with enhanced capabilities, together with the advances in computer vision, have permitted the development of image analysis apps for the automated assessment of meals. GoCARB is a mobile phone-based system designed to support individuals with type 1 diabetes during daily carbohydrate estimation. In a typical scenario, the user places a reference card next to the dish and acquires two images using a mobile phone. A series of computer vision modules detect the plate and automatically segment and recognize the different food items, while their 3D shape is reconstructed. Finally, the carbohydrate content is calculated by combining the volume of each food item with the nutritional information provided by the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Objective: The main objective of this study is to assess the accuracy of the GoCARB prototype when used by individuals with type 1 diabetes and to compare it to their own performance in carbohydrate counting. In addition, the user experience and usability of the system is evaluated by questionnaires. Methods: The study was conducted at the Bern University Hospital, “Inselspital” (Bern, Switzerland) and involved 19 adult volunteers with type 1 diabetes, each participating once. Each study day, a total of six meals of broad diversity were taken from the hospital’s restaurant and presented to the participants. The food items were weighed on a standard balance and the true amount of carbohydrate was calculated from the USDA nutrient database. Participants were asked to count the carbohydrate content of each meal independently and then by using GoCARB. At the end of each session, a questionnaire was completed to assess the user’s experience with GoCARB. Results: The mean absolute error was 27.89 (SD 38.20) grams of carbohydrate for the estimation of participants, whereas the corresponding value for the GoCARB system was 12.28 (SD 9.56) grams of carbohydrate, which was a significantly better performance ( P=.001). In 75.4% (86/114) of the meals, the GoCARB automatic segmentation was successful and 85.1% (291/342) of individual food items were successfully recognized. Most participants found GoCARB easy to use. Conclusions: This study indicates that the system is able to estimate, on average, the carbohydrate content of meals with higher accuracy than individuals with type 1 diabetes can. The participants thought the app was useful and easy to use. GoCARB seems to be a well-accepted supportive mHealth tool for the assessment of served-on-a-plate meals.

The use of computers for graduate education in Project Management. Improving the integration to the industry.

This paper presents an initiative for monitoring the competence acquisition by a team of students with different backgrounds facing the experience of being working by projects and in a project. These students are graduated bachelor engineering are inexperienced in the project management field and they play this course on a time-shared manner along with other activities. The goal of this experience is to increase the competence levels acquired by using an structured web based portfolio tool helping to reinforce how relevant different project management approaches can result for final products and how important it becomes to maintain the integration along the project. Monitoring is carried out by means of have a look on how the work is being done and measuring different technical parameters per participant. The use of this information could make possible to bring additional information to the students involved in terms of their individual competencies and the identification of new opportunities of personal improvement. These capabilities are strongly requested by companies in their daily work as well as they can be very convenient too for students when they try to organize their PhD work.

A Multi-Agent System for the Solution of Fuzzy Incidents in Telecommunications

This article presents a multi-agent expert system (SMAF) , that allows the input of incidents which occur in different elements of the telecommunications area. SMAF interacts with experts and general users, and each agent with all the agents? community, recording the incidents and their solutions in a knowledge base, without the analysis of their causes. The incidents are expressed using keywords taken from natural language (originally Spanish) and their main concepts are recorded with their severities as the users express them. Then, there is a search of the best solution for each incident, being helped by a human operator using a distancenotions between them.

Survey and brain storming studies about machines, constructions, human and environmental risk consideration in the careers of the Universidad Politécnica of Madrid

The Universidad Politécnica of Madrid (UPM) includes schools and faculties that were for engineering degrees, architecture and computer science, that are now in a quick EEES Bolonia Plan metamorphosis getting into degrees, masters and doctorate structures. They are focused towards action in machines, constructions, enterprises, that are subjected to machines, human and environment created risks. These are present in actions such as use loads, wind, snow, waves, flows, earthquakes, forces and effects in machines, vehicles behavior, chemical effects, and other environmental factors including effects of crops, cattle and beasts, forests, and varied essential economic and social disturbances. Emphasis is for authors in this session more about risks of natural origin, such as for hail, winds, snow or waves that are not exactly known a priori, but that are often considered with statistical expected distributions giving extreme values for convenient return periods. These distributions are known from measures in time, statistic of extremes and models about hazard scenarios and about responses of man made constructions or devices. In each engineering field theories were built about hazards scenarios and how to cover for important risks. Engineers must get that the systems they handle, such as vehicles, machines, firms or agro lands or forests, obtain production with enough safety for persons and with decent economic results in spite of risks. For that risks must be considered in planning, in realization and in operation, and safety margins must be taken but at a reasonable cost. That is a small level of risks will often remain, due to limitations in costs or because of due to strange hazards, and maybe they will be covered by insurance in cases such as in transport with cars, ships or aircrafts, in agro for hail, or for fire in houses or in forests. These and other decisions about quality, security for men or about business financial risks are sometimes considered with Decision Theories models, using often tools from Statistics or operational Research. The authors have done and are following field surveys about risk consideration in the careers in UPM, making deep analysis of curricula taking into account the new structures of degrees in the EEES Bolonia Plan, and they have considered the risk structures offered by diverse schools of Decision theories. That gives an aspect of the needs and uses, and recommendations about improving in the teaching about risk, that may include special subjects especially oriented for each career, school or faculty, so as to be recommended to be included into the curricula, including an elaboration and presentation format using a multi-criteria decision model.

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).

An Intelligent Assistant for Public Transport Management

This paper describes the architecture of a computer system conceived as an intelligent assistant for public transport management. The goal of the system is to help operators of a control center in making strategic decisions about how to solve problems of a fleet of buses in an urban network. The system uses artificial intelligence techniques to simulate the decision processes. In particular, a complex knowledge model has been designed by using advanced knowledge engineering methods that integrates three main tasks: diagnosis, prediction and planning. Finally, the paper describes two particular applications developed following this architecture for the cities of Torino (Italy) and Vitoria (Spain).

A Multi-agent System for Emergency Decision Support

This paper describes the multi-agent organization of a computer system that was designed to assist operators in decision making in the presence of emergencies. The application was developed for the case of emergencies caused by river floods. It operates on real-time receiving data recorded by sensors (rainfall, water levels, flows, etc.) and applies multi-agent techniques to interpret the data, predict the future behavior and recommend control actions. The system includes an advanced knowledge based architecture with multiple symbolic representation with uncertainty models (bayesian networks). This system has been applied and validated at two particular sites in Spain (the Jucar basin and the South basin).

Reusable Knowledge-based Components for Building Software Applications: A Knowledge Modelling Approach

In computer science, different types of reusable components for building software applications were proposed as a direct consequence of the emergence of new software programming paradigms. The success of these components for building applications depends on factors such as the flexibility in their combination or the facility for their selection in centralised or distributed environments such as internet. In this article, we propose a general type of reusable component, called primitive of representation, inspired by a knowledge-based approach that can promote reusability. The proposal can be understood as a generalisation of existing partial solutions that is applicable to both software and knowledge engineering for the development of hybrid applications that integrate conventional and knowledge based techniques. The article presents the structure and use of the component and describes our recent experience in the development of real-world applications based on this approach.

Evaluación de los procesos software de una organización enfocando en la disminución de la resistencia al cambio

En este artículo se describe un método para la evaluación del rendimiento de los procesos software de una organización de desarrollo de software utilizando técnicas alternativas a los cuestionarios (utilizados actualmente como técnica principal para evaluar el rendimiento de los procesos software en las organizaciones de desarrollo software). La importancia de la evaluación de procesos de una organización radica en qué, si es realizada de manera correcta, esta actividad permite identificar las oportunidades de mejora y dirigir el esfuerzo de la mejora hacia los procesos software que necesitan ser mejorados para alcanzar los objetivos del negocio establecidos por la alta dirección con la finalidad de generar ventajas competitivas respecto de sus competidores y garantizar su permanencia en el mercado.

Supporting End-User Development through a New Composition Model: An Empirical Study

End-user development (EUD) is much hyped, and its impact has outstripped even the most optimistic forecasts. Even so, the vision of end users programming their own solutions has not yet materialized. This will continue to be so unless we in both industry and the research community set ourselves the ambitious challenge of devising end to end an end-user application development model for developing a new age of EUD tools. We have embarked on this venture, and this paper presents the main insights and outcomes of our research and development efforts as part of a number of successful EU research projects. Our proposal not only aims to reshape software engineering to meet the needs of EUD but also to refashion its components as solution building blocks instead of programs and software developments. This way, end users will really be empowered to build solutions based on artefacts akin to their expertise and understanding of ideal solutions

CloudRoom: una plataforma universitaria social, semántica y ubicua

Estamos viviendo la era de la Internetificación. A día de hoy, las conexiones a Internet se asumen presentes en nuestro entorno como una necesidad más. La Web, se ha convertido en un lugar de generación de contenido por los usuarios. Una información generada, que sobrepasa la idea con la que surgió esta, ya que en la mayoría de casos, su contenido no se ha diseñado más que para ser consumido por humanos, y no por máquinas. Esto supone un cambio de mentalidad en la forma en que diseñamos sistemas capaces de soportar una carga computacional y de almacenamiento que crece sin un fin aparente. Al mismo tiempo, vivimos un momento de crisis de la educación superior: los altos costes de una educación de calidad suponen una amenaza para el mundo académico. Mediante el uso de la tecnología, se puede lograr un incremento de la productividad, y una reducción en dichos costes en un campo, en el que apenas se ha avanzado desde el Renacimiento. En CloudRoom se ha diseñado una plataforma MOOC con una arquitectura ajustada a las últimas convenciones en Cloud Computing, que implica el uso de Servicios REST, bases de datos NoSQL, y que hace uso de las últimas recomendaciones del W3C en materia de desarrollo web y Linked Data. Para su construcción, se ha hecho uso de métodos ágiles de Ingeniería del Software, técnicas de Interacción Persona-Ordenador, y tecnologías de última generación como Neo4j, Redis, Node.js, AngularJS, Bootstrap, HTML5, CSS3 o Amazon Web Services. Se ha realizado un trabajo integral de Ingeniería Informática, combinando prácticamente la totalidad de aquellas áreas de conocimiento fundamentales en Informática. En definitiva se han ideado las bases de un sistema distribuido robusto, mantenible, con características sociales y semánticas, que puede ser ejecutado en múltiples dispositivos, y que es capaz de responder ante millones de usuarios. We are living through an age of Internetification. Nowadays, Internet connections are a utility whose presence one can simply assume. The web has become a place of generation of content by users. The information generated surpasses the notion with which the World Wide Web emerged because, in most cases, this content has been designed to be consumed by humans and not by machines. This fact implies a change of mindset in the way that we design systems; these systems should be able to support a computational and storage capacity that apparently grows endlessly. At the same time, our education system is in a state of crisis: the high costs of high-quality education threaten the academic world. With the use of technology, we could achieve an increase of productivity and quality, and a reduction of these costs in this field, which has remained largely unchanged since the Renaissance. In CloudRoom, a MOOC platform has been designed with an architecture that satisfies the last conventions on Cloud Computing; which involves the use of REST services, NoSQL databases, and uses the last recommendations from W3C in terms of web development and Linked Data. For its building process, agile methods of Software Engineering, Human-Computer Interaction techniques, and state of the art technologies such as Neo4j, Redis, Node.js, AngularJS, Bootstrap, HTML5, CSS3 or Amazon Web Services have been used. Furthermore, a comprehensive Informatics Engineering work has been performed, by combining virtually all of the areas of knowledge in Computer Science. Summarizing, the pillars of a robust, maintainable, and distributed system have been devised; a system with social and semantic capabilities, which runs in multiple devices, and scales to millions of users.

Including functional usability features in a Model-Driven Development Method

The Software Engineering (SE) community has historically focused on working with models to represent functionality and persistence, pushing interaction modelling into the background, which has been covered by the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) community. Recently, adequately modelling interaction, and specifically usability, is being considered as a key factor for success in user acceptance, making the integration of the SE and HCI communities more necessary. If we focus on the Model-Driven Development (MDD) paradigm, we notice that there is a lack of proposals to deal with usability features from the very first steps of software development process. In general, usability features are manually implemented once the code has been generated from models. This contradicts the MDD paradigm, which claims that all the analysts? effort must be focused on building models, and the code generation is relegated to model to code transformations. Moreover, usability features related to functionality may involve important changes in the system architecture if they are not considered from the early steps. We state that these usability features related to functionality can be represented abstractly in a conceptual model, and their implementation can be carried out automatically.

Tutorial 2.0 on Technical Drawing 3D and Visualization

In recent years, the continuous incorporation of new technologies in the learning process has been an important factor in the educational process [1]. The Technical University of Madrid (UPM) promotes educational innovation processes and develops projects related to the improvement of the education quality. The experience that we present fits into the Educational Innovation Project (EIP) of the E.U. of Agricultural Engineering of Madrid. One of the main objectives of the EIP is to "Take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the Learning and Knowledge Technologies in order to enrich the educational processes and teaching management" [2].

A survey on service quality description

Quality of service (QoS) can be a critical element for achieving the business goals of a service provider, for the acceptance of a service by the user, or for guaranteeing service characteristics in a composition of services, where a service is defined as either a software or a software-support (i.e., infrastructural) service which is available on any type of network or electronic channel. The goal of this article is to compare the approaches to QoS description in the literature, where several models and metamodels are included. consider a large spectrum of models and metamodels to describe service quality, ranging from ontological approaches to define quality measures, metrics, and dimensions, to metamodels enabling the specification of quality-based service requirements and capabilities as well as of SLAs (Service-Level Agreements) and SLA templates for service provisioning. Our survey is performed by inspecting the characteristics of the available approaches to reveal which are the consolidated ones and which are the ones specific to given aspects and to analyze where the need for further research and investigation lies. The approaches here illustrated have been selected based on a systematic review of conference proceedings and journals spanning various research areas in computer science and engineering, including: distributed, information, and telecommunication systems, networks and security, and service-oriented and grid computing.