Axis Mapping: The Estimation of Surface Orientations and its Applications in Vehicle Localization and Structural Geology

The map representation of an environment should be selected based on its intended application. For example, a geometrically accurate map describing the Euclidean space of an environment is not necessarily the best choice if only a small subset its features are required. One possible subset is the orientations of the flat surfaces in the environment, represented by a special parameterization of normal vectors called axes. Devoid of positional information, the entries of an axis map form a non-injective relationship with the flat surfaces in the environment, which results in physically distinct flat surfaces being represented by a single axis. This drastically reduces the complexity of the map, but retains important information about the environment that can be used in meaningful applications in both two and three dimensions. This thesis presents axis mapping, which is an algorithm that accurately and automatically estimates an axis map of an environment based on sensor measurements collected by a mobile platform. Furthermore, two major applications of axis maps are developed and implemented. First, the LiDAR compass is a heading estimation algorithm that compares measurements of axes with an axis map of the environment. Pairing the LiDAR compass with simple translation measurements forms the basis for an accurate two-dimensional localization algorithm. It is shown that this algorithm eliminates the growth of heading error in both indoor and outdoor environments, resulting in accurate localization over long distances. Second, in the context of geotechnical engineering, a three-dimensional axis map is called a stereonet, which is used as a tool to examine the strength and stability of a rock face. Axis mapping provides a novel approach to create accurate stereonets safely, rapidly, and inexpensively compared to established methods. The non-injective property of axis maps is leveraged to probabilistically describe the relationships between non-sequential measurements of the rock face. The automatic estimation of stereonets was tested in three separate outdoor environments. It is shown that axis mapping can accurately estimate stereonets while improving safety, requiring significantly less time and effort, and lowering costs compared to traditional and current state-of-the-art approaches.

Development of N N SMRT for N a power of 2 and its Applications in Image Enhancement

Digital Image Processing is a rapidly evolving eld with growing applications in Science and Engineering. It involves changing the nature of an image in order to either improve its pictorial information for human interpretation or render it more suitable for autonomous machine perception. One of the major areas of image processing for human vision applications is image enhancement. The principal goal of image enhancement is to improve visual quality of an image, typically by taking advantage of the response of human visual system. Image enhancement methods are carried out usually in the pixel domain. Transform domain methods can often provide another way to interpret and understand image contents. A suitable transform, thus selected, should have less computational complexity. Sequency ordered arrangement of unique MRT (Mapped Real Transform) coe cients can give rise to an integer-to-integer transform, named Sequency based unique MRT (SMRT), suitable for image processing applications. The development of the SMRT from UMRT (Unique MRT), forward & inverse SMRT algorithms and the basis functions are introduced. A few properties of the SMRT are explored and its scope in lossless text compression is presented.

Multi-sensor Cloud and Aerosol Retrieval Simulator and Its Applications

Executing a cloud or aerosol physical properties retrieval algorithm from controlled synthetic data is an important step in retrieval algorithm development. Synthetic data can help answer questions about the sensitivity and performance of the algorithm or aid in determining how an existing retrieval algorithm may perform with a planned sensor. Synthetic data can also help in solving issues that may have surfaced in the retrieval results. Synthetic data become very important when other validation methods, such as field campaigns,are of limited scope. These tend to be of relatively short duration and often are costly. Ground stations have limited spatial coverage whilesynthetic data can cover large spatial and temporal scales and a wide variety of conditions at a low cost. In this work I develop an advanced cloud and aerosol retrieval simulator for the MODIS instrument, also known as Multi-sensor Cloud and Aerosol Retrieval Simulator (MCARS). In a close collaboration with the modeling community I have seamlessly combined the GEOS-5 global climate model with the DISORT radiative transfer code, widely used by the remote sensing community, with the observations from the MODIS instrument to create the simulator. With the MCARS simulator it was then possible to solve the long standing issue with the MODIS aerosol optical depth retrievals that had a low bias for smoke aerosols. MODIS aerosol retrieval did not account for effects of humidity on smoke aerosols. The MCARS simulator also revealed an issue that has not been recognized previously, namely,the value of fine mode fraction could create a linear dependence between retrieved aerosol optical depth and land surface reflectance. MCARS provided the ability to examine aerosol retrievals against “ground truth” for hundreds of thousands of simultaneous samples for an area covered by only three AERONET ground stations. Findings from MCARS are already being used to improve the performance of operational MODIS aerosol properties retrieval algorithms. The modeling community will use the MCARS data to create new parameterizations for aerosol properties as a function of properties of the atmospheric column and gain the ability to correct any assimilated retrieval data that may display similar dependencies in comparisons with ground measurements.

Nested Sampling and its Applications in Stable Compressive Covariance Estimation and Phase Retrieval with Near-Minimal Measurements

Compressed covariance sensing using quadratic samplers is gaining increasing interest in recent literature. Covariance matrix often plays the role of a sufficient statistic in many signal and information processing tasks. However, owing to the large dimension of the data, it may become necessary to obtain a compressed sketch of the high dimensional covariance matrix to reduce the associated storage and communication costs. Nested sampling has been proposed in the past as an efficient sub-Nyquist sampling strategy that enables perfect reconstruction of the autocorrelation sequence of Wide-Sense Stationary (WSS) signals, as though it was sampled at the Nyquist rate. The key idea behind nested sampling is to exploit properties of the difference set that naturally arises in quadratic measurement model associated with covariance compression. In this thesis, we will focus on developing novel versions of nested sampling for low rank Toeplitz covariance estimation, and phase retrieval, where the latter problem finds many applications in high resolution optical imaging, X-ray crystallography and molecular imaging. The problem of low rank compressive Toeplitz covariance estimation is first shown to be fundamentally related to that of line spectrum recovery. In absence if noise, this connection can be exploited to develop a particular kind of sampler called the Generalized Nested Sampler (GNS), that can achieve optimal compression rates. In presence of bounded noise, we develop a regularization-free algorithm that provably leads to stable recovery of the high dimensional Toeplitz matrix from its order-wise minimal sketch acquired using a GNS. Contrary to existing TV-norm and nuclear norm based reconstruction algorithms, our technique does not use any tuning parameters, which can be of great practical value. The idea of nested sampling idea also finds a surprising use in the problem of phase retrieval, which has been of great interest in recent times for its convex formulation via PhaseLift, By using another modified version of nested sampling, namely the Partial Nested Fourier Sampler (PNFS), we show that with probability one, it is possible to achieve a certain conjectured lower bound on the necessary measurement size. Moreover, for sparse data, an l1 minimization based algorithm is proposed that can lead to stable phase retrieval using order-wise minimal number of measurements.

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 web adoption: online tools for web evaluation and metadata extraction

This work briefly analyses the difficulties to adopt the Semantic Web, and in particular proposes systems to know the present level of migration to the different technologies that make up the Semantic Web. It focuses on the presentation and description of two tools, DigiDocSpider and DigiDocMetaEdit, designed with the aim of verifYing, evaluating, and promoting its implementation.

Structure-semantics interplay in complex networks and its effects on the predictability of similarity in texts

The classification of texts has become a major endeavor with so much electronic material available, for it is an essential task in several applications, including search engines and information retrieval. There are different ways to define similarity for grouping similar texts into clusters, as the concept of similarity may depend on the purpose of the task. For instance, in topic extraction similar texts mean those within the same semantic field, whereas in author recognition stylistic features should be considered. In this study, we introduce ways to classify texts employing concepts of complex networks, which may be able to capture syntactic, semantic and even pragmatic features. The interplay between various metrics of the complex networks is analyzed with three applications, namely identification of machine translation (MT) systems, evaluation of quality of machine translated texts and authorship recognition. We shall show that topological features of the networks representing texts can enhance the ability to identify MT systems in particular cases. For evaluating the quality of MT texts, on the other hand, high correlation was obtained with methods capable of capturing the semantics. This was expected because the golden standards used are themselves based on word co-occurrence. Notwithstanding, the Katz similarity, which involves semantic and structure in the comparison of texts, achieved the highest correlation with the NIST measurement, indicating that in some cases the combination of both approaches can improve the ability to quantify quality in MT. In authorship recognition, again the topological features were relevant in some contexts, though for the books and authors analyzed good results were obtained with semantic features as well. Because hybrid approaches encompassing semantic and topological features have not been extensively used, we believe that the methodology proposed here may be useful to enhance text classification considerably, as it combines well-established strategies. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Semantic web mining and the representation, analysis, and evolution of web space

Semantic Web Mining aims at combining the two fast-developing research areas Semantic Web and Web Mining. This survey analyzes the convergence of trends from both areas: Growing numbers of researchers work on improving the results of Web Mining by exploiting semantic structures in the Web, and they use Web Mining techniques for building the Semantic Web. Last but not least, these techniques can be used for mining the Semantic Web itself. The second aim of this paper is to use these concepts to circumscribe what Web space is, what it represents and how it can be represented and analyzed. This is used to sketch the role that Semantic Web Mining and the software agents and human agents involved in it can play in the evolution of Web space.

Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web

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

Web semántica: RDF y SGBD que lo soportan

En aquest treball es fa una breu introducció a la web semàntica i el seu estat actual. S'analitzen els llenguatges que hi ha a la base del munt de recomanacions del World Wide Web Consortium (XML, XML Schema, RDF i RDF Schema) i s'examinen diferents sistemes de gestió de bases de dades que donen suport a les metadades, que són la base de la web semàntica.

User Experience of Geocaching and Its Application to Tourism and Education

Advances in technology have provided new ways of using entertainment and game technology to foster human interaction. Games and playing with games have always been an important part of people’s everyday lives. Traditionally, human-computer interaction (HCI) research was seen as a psychological cognitive science focused on human factors, with engineering sciences as the computer science part of it. Although cognitive science has made significant progress over the past decade, the influence of people’s emotions on design networks is increasingly important, especially when the primary goal is to challenge and entertain users (Norman 2002). Game developers have explored the key issues in game design and identified that the driving force in the success of games is user experience. User-centered design integrates knowledge of users’ activity practices, needs, and preferences into the design process. Geocaching is a location-based treasure hunt game created by a community of players. Players use GPS (Global Position System) technology to find “treasures” and create their own geocaches; the game can be developed when the players invent caches and used more imagination to creations the caches. This doctoral dissertation explores user experience of geocaching and its applications in tourism and education. Globally, based on the Geocaching.com webpage, geocaching has been played about 180 countries and there are more than 10 million registered geocachers worldwide (Geocaching.com, 25.11.2014). This dissertation develops and presents an interaction model called the GameFlow Experience model that can be used to support the design of treasure hunt applications in tourism and education contexts. The GameFlow Model presents and clarifies various experiences; it provides such experiences in a real-life context, offers desirable design targets to be utilized in service design, and offers a perspective to consider when evaluating the success of adventure game concepts. User-centered game designs have adapted to human factor research in mainstream computing science. For many years, the user-centered design approach has been the most important research field in software development. Research has been focusing on user-centered design in software development such as office programs, but the same ideas and theories that will reflect the needs of a user-centered research are now also being applied to game design (Charles et al. 2005.) For several years, we have seen a growing interest in user experience design. Digital games are experience providers, and game developers need tools to better understand the user experience related to products and services they have created. This thesis aims to present what the user experience is in geocaching and treasure hunt games and how it can be used to develop new concepts for the treasure hunt. Engineers, designers, and researchers should have a clear understanding of what user experience is, what its parts are, and most importantly, how we can influence user satisfaction. In addition, we need to understand how users interact with electronic products and people, and how different elements synergize their experiences. This doctoral dissertation represents pioneering work on the user experience of geocaching and treasure hunt games in the context of tourism and education. The research also provides a model for game developers who are planning treasure hunt concepts.

Towards semantic web mining

Semantic Web Mining aims at combining the two fast-developing research areas Semantic Web and Web Mining. The idea is to improve, on the one hand, the results of Web Mining by exploiting the new semantic structures in the Web; and to make use of Web Mining, on overview of where the two areas meet today, and sketches ways of how a closer integration could be profitable.

Semantic web mining

Semantic Web Mining aims at combining the two fast-developing research areas Semantic Web and Web Mining. This survey analyzes the convergence of trends from both areas: an increasing number of researchers is working on improving the results of Web Mining by exploiting semantic structures in the Web, and they make use of Web Mining techniques for building the Semantic Web. Last but not least, these techniques can be used for mining the Semantic Web itself. The Semantic Web is the second-generation WWW, enriched by machine-processable information which supports the user in his tasks. Given the enormous size even of today’s Web, it is impossible to manually enrich all of these resources. Therefore, automated schemes for learning the relevant information are increasingly being used. Web Mining aims at discovering insights about the meaning of Web resources and their usage. Given the primarily syntactical nature of the data being mined, the discovery of meaning is impossible based on these data only. Therefore, formalizations of the semantics of Web sites and navigation behavior are becoming more and more common. Furthermore, mining the Semantic Web itself is another upcoming application. We argue that the two areas Web Mining and Semantic Web need each other to fulfill their goals, but that the full potential of this convergence is not yet realized. This paper gives an overview of where the two areas meet today, and sketches ways of how a closer integration could be profitable.

Il fascicolo sanitario elettronico tra Semantic Web e diritto alla privacy

Principale obiettivo della ricerca è quello di ricostruire lo stato dell’arte in materia di sanità elettronica e Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico, con una precipua attenzione ai temi della protezione dei dati personali e dell’interoperabilità. A tal fine sono stati esaminati i documenti, vincolanti e non, dell’Unione europea nonché selezionati progetti europei e nazionali (come “Smart Open Services for European Patients” (EU); “Elektronische Gesundheitsakte” (Austria); “MedCom” (Danimarca); “Infrastruttura tecnologica del Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico”, “OpenInFSE: Realizzazione di un’infrastruttura operativa a supporto dell’interoperabilità delle soluzioni territoriali di fascicolo sanitario elettronico nel contesto del sistema pubblico di connettività”, “Evoluzione e interoperabilità tecnologica del Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico”, “IPSE - Sperimentazione di un sistema per l’interoperabilità europea e nazionale delle soluzioni di Fascicolo Sanitario Elettronico: componenti Patient Summary e ePrescription” (Italia)). Le analisi giuridiche e tecniche mostrano il bisogno urgente di definire modelli che incoraggino l’utilizzo di dati sanitari ed implementino strategie effettive per l’utilizzo con finalità secondarie di dati sanitari digitali , come Open Data e Linked Open Data. L’armonizzazione giuridica e tecnologica è vista come aspetto strategico per ridurre i conflitti in materia di protezione di dati personali esistenti nei Paesi membri nonché la mancanza di interoperabilità tra i sistemi informativi europei sui Fascicoli Sanitari Elettronici. A questo scopo sono state individuate tre linee guida: (1) armonizzazione normativa, (2) armonizzazione delle regole, (3) armonizzazione del design dei sistemi informativi. I principi della Privacy by Design (“prottivi” e “win-win”), così come gli standard del Semantic Web, sono considerate chiavi risolutive per il suddetto cambiamento.