Semantic coordination through programmable Tuple spaces

Two of the main features of today complex software systems like pervasive computing systems and Internet-based applications are distribution and openness. Distribution revolves around three orthogonal dimensions: (i) distribution of control|systems are characterised by several independent computational entities and devices, each representing an autonomous and proactive locus of control; (ii) spatial distribution|entities and devices are physically distributed and connected in a global (such as the Internet) or local network; and (iii) temporal distribution|interacting system components come and go over time, and are not required to be available for interaction at the same time. Openness deals with the heterogeneity and dynamism of system components: complex computational systems are open to the integration of diverse components, heterogeneous in terms of architecture and technology, and are dynamic since they allow components to be updated, added, or removed while the system is running. The engineering of open and distributed computational systems mandates for the adoption of a software infrastructure whose underlying model and technology could provide the required level of uncoupling among system components. This is the main motivation behind current research trends in the area of coordination middleware to exploit tuple-based coordination models in the engineering of complex software systems, since they intrinsically provide coordinated components with communication uncoupling and further details in the references therein. An additional daunting challenge for tuple-based models comes from knowledge-intensive application scenarios, namely, scenarios where most of the activities are based on knowledge in some form|and where knowledge becomes the prominent means by which systems get coordinated. Handling knowledge in tuple-based systems induces problems in terms of syntax - e.g., two tuples containing the same data may not match due to differences in the tuple structure - and (mostly) of semantics|e.g., two tuples representing the same information may not match based on a dierent syntax adopted. Till now, the problem has been faced by exploiting tuple-based coordination within a middleware for knowledge intensive environments: e.g., experiments with tuple-based coordination within a Semantic Web middleware (surveys analogous approaches). However, they appear to be designed to tackle the design of coordination for specic application contexts like Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, and they result in a rather involved extension of the tuple space model. The main goal of this thesis was to conceive a more general approach to semantic coordination. In particular, it was developed the model and technology of semantic tuple centres. It is adopted the tuple centre model as main coordination abstraction to manage system interactions. A tuple centre can be seen as a programmable tuple space, i.e. an extension of a Linda tuple space, where the behaviour of the tuple space can be programmed so as to react to interaction events. By encapsulating coordination laws within coordination media, tuple centres promote coordination uncoupling among coordinated components. Then, the tuple centre model was semantically enriched: a main design choice in this work was to try not to completely redesign the existing syntactic tuple space model, but rather provide a smooth extension that { although supporting semantic reasoning { keep the simplicity of tuple and tuple matching as easier as possible. By encapsulating the semantic representation of the domain of discourse within coordination media, semantic tuple centres promote semantic uncoupling among coordinated components. The main contributions of the thesis are: (i) the design of the semantic tuple centre model; (ii) the implementation and evaluation of the model based on an existent coordination infrastructure; (iii) a view of the application scenarios in which semantic tuple centres seem to be suitable as coordination media.

A Comparative Study of Two Semantic Systems: Body Russian and Russian Phraseology

Grigorij Kreidlin (Russia). A Comparative Study of Two Semantic Systems: Body Russian and Russian Phraseology. Mr. Kreidlin teaches in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the State University of Humanities in Moscow and worked on this project from August 1996 to July 1998. The classical approach to non-verbal and verbal oral communication is based on a traditional separation of body and mind. Linguists studied words and phrasemes, the products of mind activities, while gestures, facial expressions, postures and other forms of body language were left to anthropologists, psychologists, physiologists, and indeed to anyone but linguists. Only recently have linguists begun to turn their attention to gestures and semiotic and cognitive paradigms are now appearing that raise the question of designing an integral model for the unified description of non-verbal and verbal communicative behaviour. This project attempted to elaborate lexical and semantic fragments of such a model, producing a co-ordinated semantic description of the main Russian gestures (including gestures proper, postures and facial expressions) and their natural language analogues. The concept of emblematic gestures and gestural phrasemes and of their semantic links permitted an appropriate description of the transformation of a body as a purely physical substance into a body as a carrier of essential attributes of Russian culture - the semiotic process called the culturalisation of the human body. Here the human body embodies a system of cultural values and displays them in a text within the area of phraseology and some other important language domains. The goal of this research was to develop a theory that would account for the fundamental peculiarities of the process. The model proposed is based on the unified lexicographic representation of verbal and non-verbal units in the Dictionary of Russian Gestures, which the Mr. Kreidlin had earlier complied in collaboration with a group of his students. The Dictionary was originally oriented only towards reflecting how the lexical competence of Russian body language is represented in the Russian mind. Now a special type of phraseological zone has been designed to reflect explicitly semantic relationships between the gestures in the entries and phrasemes and to provide the necessary information for a detailed description of these. All the definitions, rules of usage and the established correlations are written in a semantic meta-language. Several classes of Russian gestural phrasemes were identified, including those phrasemes and idioms with semantic definitions close to those of the corresponding gestures, those phraseological units that have lost touch with the related gestures (although etymologically they are derived from gestures that have gone out of use), and phrasemes and idioms which have semantic traces or reflexes inherited from the meaning of the related gestures. The basic assumptions and practical considerations underlying the work were as follows. (1) To compare meanings one has to be able to state them. To state the meaning of a gesture or a phraseological expression, one needs a formal semantic meta-language of propositional character that represents the cognitive and mental aspects of the codes. (2) The semantic contrastive analysis of any semiotic codes used in person-to-person communication also requires a single semantic meta-language, i.e. a formal semantic language of description,. This language must be as linguistically and culturally independent as possible and yet must be open to interpretation through any culture and code. Another possible method of conducting comparative verbal-non-verbal semantic research is to work with different semantic meta-languages and semantic nets and to learn how to combine them, translate from one to another, etc. in order to reach a common basis for the subsequent comparison of units. (3) The practical work in defining phraseological units and organising the phraseological zone in the Dictionary of Russian Gestures unexpectedly showed that semantic links between gestures and gestural phrasemes are reflected not only in common semantic elements and syntactic structure of semantic propositions, but also in general and partial cognitive operations that are made over semantic definitions. (4) In comparative semantic analysis one should take into account different values and roles of inner form and image components in the semantic representation of non-verbal and verbal units. (5) For the most part, gestural phrasemes are direct semantic derivatives of gestures. The cognitive and formal techniques can be regarded as typological features for the future functional-semantic classification of gestural phrasemes: two phrasemes whose meaning can be obtained by the same cognitive or purely syntactic operations (or types of operations) over the meanings of the corresponding gestures, belong by definition to one and the same class. The nature of many cognitive operations has not been studied well so far, but the first steps towards its comprehension and description have been taken. The research identified 25 logically possible classes of relationships between a gesture and a gestural phraseme. The calculation is based on theoretically possible formal (set-theory) correlations between signifiers and signified of the non-verbal and verbal units. However, in order to examine which of them are realised in practice a complete semantic and lexicographic description of all (not only central) everyday emblems and gestural phrasemes is required and this unfortunately does not yet exist. Mr. Kreidlin suggests that the results of the comparative analysis of verbal and non-verbal units could also be used in other research areas such as the lexicography of emotions.

A Semantic Scraping Model for Web Resources - Applying Linked Data to Web Page Screen Scraping

In spite of the increasing presence of Semantic Web Facilities, only a limited amount of the available resources in the Internet provide a semantic access. Recent initiatives such as the emerging Linked Data Web are providing semantic access to available data by porting existing resources to the semantic web using different technologies, such as database-semantic mapping and scraping. Nevertheless, existing scraping solutions are based on ad-hoc solutions complemented with graphical interfaces for speeding up the scraper development. This article proposes a generic framework for web scraping based on semantic technologies. This framework is structured in three levels: scraping services, semantic scraping model and syntactic scraping. The first level provides an interface to generic applications or intelligent agents for gathering information from the web at a high level. The second level defines a semantic RDF model of the scraping process, in order to provide a declarative approach to the scraping task. Finally, the third level provides an implementation of the RDF scraping model for specific technologies. The work has been validated in a scenario that illustrates its application to mashup technologies

Combining statistical and semantic approaches to the translation of ontologies and taxonomies

Ontologies and taxonomies are widely used to organize concepts providing the basis for activities such as indexing, and as background knowledge for NLP tasks. As such, translation of these resources would prove useful to adapt these systems to new languages. However, we show that the nature of these resources is significantly different from the "free-text" paradigm used to train most statistical machine translation systems. In particular, we see significant differences in the linguistic nature of these resources and such resources have rich additional semantics. We demonstrate that as a result of these linguistic differences, standard SMT methods, in particular evaluation metrics, can produce poor performance. We then look to the task of leveraging these semantics for translation, which we approach in three ways: by adapting the translation system to the domain of the resource; by examining if semantics can help to predict the syntactic structure used in translation; and by evaluating if we can use existing translated taxonomies to disambiguate translations. We present some early results from these experiments, which shed light on the degree of success we may have with each approach

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).

A syntactic approach to combining functional notation, lazy evaluation, and higher-order in LP systems

Nondeterminism and partially instantiated data structures give logic programming expressive power beyond that of functional programming. However, functional programming often provides convenient syntactic features, such as having a designated implicit output argument, which allow function cali nesting and sometimes results in more compact code. Functional programming also sometimes allows a more direct encoding of lazy evaluation, with its ability to deal with infinite data structures. We present a syntactic functional extensión, used in the Ciao system, which can be implemented in ISO-standard Prolog systems and covers function application, predefined evaluable functors, functional definitions, quoting, and lazy evaluation. The extensión is also composable with higher-order features and can be combined with other extensions to ISO-Prolog such as constraints. We also highlight the features of the Ciao system which help implementation and present some data on the overhead of using lazy evaluation with respect to eager evaluation.

Enabling folksonomies for knowledge extraction: A semantic grounding approach

Folksonomies emerge as the result of the free tagging activity of a large number of users over a variety of resources. They can be considered as valuable sources from which it is possible to obtain emerging vocabularies that can be leveraged in knowledge extraction tasks. However, when it comes to understanding the meaning of tags in folksonomies, several problems mainly related to the appearance of synonymous and ambiguous tags arise, specifically in the context of multilinguality. The authors aim to turn folksonomies into knowledge structures where tag meanings are identified, and relations between them are asserted. For such purpose, they use DBpedia as a general knowledge base from which they leverage its multilingual capabilities.

Towards a lightweight mobile semantic-based approach for enhancing interaction with smart objects

This work describes a semantic extension for a user-smart object interaction model based on the ECA paradigm (Event-Condition-Action). In this approach, smart objects publish their sensing (event) and action capabilities in the cloud and mobile devices are prepared to retrieve them and act as mediators to configure personalized behaviours for the objects. In this paper, the information handled by this interaction system has been shaped according several semantic models that, together with the integration of an embedded ontological and rule-based reasoner, are exploited in order to (i) automatically detect incompatible ECA rules configurations and to (ii) support complex ECA rules definitions and execution. This semantic extension may significantly improve the management of smart spaces populated with numerous smart objects from mobile personal devices, as it facilitates the configuration of coherent ECA rules.

A Semantic-Based Approach to Attain Reproducibility of Computational Environments in Scientic Work ows: A Case Study

Reproducible research in scientic work ows is often addressed by tracking the provenance of the produced results. While this approach allows inspecting intermediate and nal results, improves understanding, and permits replaying a work ow execution, it does not ensure that the computational environment is available for subsequent executions to reproduce the experiment. In this work, we propose describing the resources involved in the execution of an experiment using a set of semantic vocabularies, so as to conserve the computational environment. We dene a process for documenting the work ow application, management system, and their dependencies based on 4 domain ontologies. We then conduct an experimental evaluation sing a real work ow application on an academic and a public Cloud platform. Results show that our approach can reproduce an equivalent execution environment of a predened virtual machine image on both computing platforms.

Semantic Annotation of RESTful and WFS OGC services

Actualmente, la Web provee un inmenso conjunto de servicios (WS-*, RESTful, OGC WFS), los cuales están normalmente expuestos a través de diferentes estándares que permiten localizar e invocar a estos servicios. Estos servicios están, generalmente, descritos utilizando información textual, sin una descripción formal, es decir, la descripción de los servicios es únicamente sintáctica. Para facilitar el uso y entendimiento de estos servicios, es necesario anotarlos de manera formal a través de la descripción de los metadatos. El objetivo de esta tesis es proponer un enfoque para la anotación semántica de servicios Web en el dominio geoespacial. Este enfoque permite automatizar algunas de las etapas del proceso de anotación, mediante el uso combinado de recursos ontológicos y servicios externos. Este proceso ha sido evaluado satisfactoriamente con un conjunto de servicios en el dominio geoespacial. La contribución principal de este trabajo es la automatización parcial del proceso de anotación semántica de los servicios RESTful y WFS, lo cual mejora el estado del arte en esta área. Una lista detallada de las contribuciones son: • Un modelo para representar servicios Web desde el punto de vista sintáctico y semántico, teniendo en cuenta el esquema y las instancias. • Un método para anotar servicios Web utilizando ontologías y recursos externos. • Un sistema que implementa el proceso de anotación propuesto. • Un banco de pruebas para la anotación semántica de servicios RESTful y OGC WFS. Abstract The Web contains an immense collection of Web services (WS-*, RESTful, OGC WFS), normally exposed through standards that tell us how to locate and invocate them. These services are usually described using mostly textual information and without proper formal descriptions, that is, existing service descriptions mostly stay on a syntactic level. If we want to make such services potentially easier to understand and use, we may want to annotate them formally, by means of descriptive metadata. The objective of this thesis is to propose an approach for the semantic annotation of services in the geospatial domain. Our approach automates some stages of the annotation process, by using a combination of thirdparty resources and services. It has been successfully evaluated with a set of geospatial services. The main contribution of this work is the partial automation of the process of RESTful and WFS semantic annotation services, what improves the current state of the art in this area. The more detailed list of contributions are: • A model for representing Web services. • A method for annotating Web services using ontological and external resources. • A system that implements the proposed annotation process. • A gold standard for the semantic annotation of RESTful and OGC WFS services, and algorithms for evaluating the annotations.

A semantic-based approach to attain reproducibility of computational environments in scientific workflows: a case study

Reproducible research in scientific workflows is often addressed by tracking the provenance of the produced results. While this approach allows inspecting intermediate and final results, improves understanding, and permits replaying a workflow execution, it does not ensure that the computational environment is available for subsequent executions to reproduce the experiment. In this work, we propose describing the resources involved in the execution of an experiment using a set of semantic vocabularies, so as to conserve the computational environment. We define a process for documenting the workflow application, management system, and their dependencies based on 4 domain ontologies. We then conduct an experimental evaluation using a real workflow application on an academic and a public Cloud platform. Results show that our approach can reproduce an equivalent execution environment of a predefined virtual machine image on both computing platforms.

A Novel Approach to Context-Aware Content-Based Middleware

La computación ubicua está extendiendo su aplicación desde entornos específicos hacia el uso cotidiano; el Internet de las cosas (IoT, en inglés) es el ejemplo más brillante de su aplicación y de la complejidad intrínseca que tiene, en comparación con el clásico desarrollo de aplicaciones. La principal característica que diferencia la computación ubicua de los otros tipos está en como se emplea la información de contexto. Las aplicaciones clásicas no usan en absoluto la información de contexto o usan sólo una pequeña parte de ella, integrándola de una forma ad hoc con una implementación específica para la aplicación. La motivación de este tratamiento particular se tiene que buscar en la dificultad de compartir el contexto con otras aplicaciones. En realidad lo que es información de contexto depende del tipo de aplicación: por poner un ejemplo, para un editor de imágenes, la imagen es la información y sus metadatos, tales como la hora de grabación o los ajustes de la cámara, son el contexto, mientras que para el sistema de ficheros la imagen junto con los ajustes de cámara son la información, y el contexto es representado por los metadatos externos al fichero como la fecha de modificación o la de último acceso. Esto significa que es difícil compartir la información de contexto, y la presencia de un middleware de comunicación que soporte el contexto de forma explícita simplifica el desarrollo de aplicaciones para computación ubicua. Al mismo tiempo el uso del contexto no tiene que ser obligatorio, porque si no se perdería la compatibilidad con las aplicaciones que no lo usan, convirtiendo así dicho middleware en un middleware de contexto. SilboPS, que es nuestra implementación de un sistema publicador/subscriptor basado en contenido e inspirado en SIENA [11, 9], resuelve dicho problema extendiendo el paradigma con dos elementos: el Contexto y la Función de Contexto. El contexto representa la información contextual propiamente dicha del mensaje por enviar o aquella requerida por el subscriptor para recibir notificaciones, mientras la función de contexto se evalúa usando el contexto del publicador y del subscriptor. Esto permite desacoplar la lógica de gestión del contexto de aquella de la función de contexto, incrementando de esta forma la flexibilidad de la comunicación entre varias aplicaciones. De hecho, al utilizar por defecto un contexto vacío, las aplicaciones clásicas y las que manejan el contexto pueden usar el mismo SilboPS, resolviendo de esta forma la incompatibilidad entre las dos categorías. En cualquier caso la posible incompatibilidad semántica sigue existiendo ya que depende de la interpretación que cada aplicación hace de los datos y no puede ser solucionada por una tercera parte agnóstica. El entorno IoT conlleva retos no sólo de contexto, sino también de escalabilidad. La cantidad de sensores, el volumen de datos que producen y la cantidad de aplicaciones que podrían estar interesadas en manipular esos datos está en continuo aumento. Hoy en día la respuesta a esa necesidad es la computación en la nube, pero requiere que las aplicaciones sean no sólo capaces de escalar, sino de hacerlo de forma elástica [22]. Desgraciadamente no hay ninguna primitiva de sistema distribuido de slicing que soporte un particionamiento del estado interno [33] junto con un cambio en caliente, además de que los sistemas cloud actuales como OpenStack u OpenNebula no ofrecen directamente una monitorización elástica. Esto implica que hay un problema bilateral: cómo puede una aplicación escalar de forma elástica y cómo monitorizar esa aplicación para saber cuándo escalarla horizontalmente. E-SilboPS es la versión elástica de SilboPS y se adapta perfectamente como solución para el problema de monitorización, gracias al paradigma publicador/subscriptor basado en contenido y, a diferencia de otras soluciones [5], permite escalar eficientemente, para cumplir con la carga de trabajo sin sobre-provisionar o sub-provisionar recursos. Además está basado en un algoritmo recientemente diseñado que muestra como añadir elasticidad a una aplicación con distintas restricciones sobre el estado: sin estado, estado aislado con coordinación externa y estado compartido con coordinación general. Su evaluación enseña como se pueden conseguir notables speedups, siendo el nivel de red el principal factor limitante: de hecho la eficiencia calculada (ver Figura 5.8) demuestra cómo se comporta cada configuración en comparación con las adyacentes. Esto permite conocer la tendencia actual de todo el sistema, para saber si la siguiente configuración compensará el coste que tiene con la ganancia que lleva en el throughput de notificaciones. Se tiene que prestar especial atención en la evaluación de los despliegues con igual coste, para ver cuál es la mejor solución en relación a una carga de trabajo dada. Como último análisis se ha estimado el overhead introducido por las distintas configuraciones a fin de identificar el principal factor limitante del throughput. Esto ayuda a determinar la parte secuencial y el overhead de base [26] en un despliegue óptimo en comparación con uno subóptimo. Efectivamente, según el tipo de carga de trabajo, la estimación puede ser tan baja como el 10 % para un óptimo local o tan alta como el 60 %: esto ocurre cuando se despliega una configuración sobredimensionada para la carga de trabajo. Esta estimación de la métrica de Karp-Flatt es importante para el sistema de gestión porque le permite conocer en que dirección (ampliar o reducir) es necesario cambiar el despliegue para mejorar sus prestaciones, en lugar que usar simplemente una política de ampliación. ABSTRACT The application of pervasive computing is extending from field-specific to everyday use. The Internet of Things (IoT) is the shiniest example of its application and of its intrinsic complexity compared with classical application development. The main characteristic that differentiates pervasive from other forms of computing lies in the use of contextual information. Some classical applications do not use any contextual information whatsoever. Others, on the other hand, use only part of the contextual information, which is integrated in an ad hoc fashion using an application-specific implementation. This information is handled in a one-off manner because of the difficulty of sharing context across applications. As a matter of fact, the application type determines what the contextual information is. For instance, for an imaging editor, the image is the information and its meta-data, like the time of the shot or camera settings, are the context, whereas, for a file-system application, the image, including its camera settings, is the information and the meta-data external to the file, like the modification date or the last accessed timestamps, constitute the context. This means that contextual information is hard to share. A communication middleware that supports context decidedly eases application development in pervasive computing. However, the use of context should not be mandatory; otherwise, the communication middleware would be reduced to a context middleware and no longer be compatible with non-context-aware applications. SilboPS, our implementation of content-based publish/subscribe inspired by SIENA [11, 9], solves this problem by adding two new elements to the paradigm: the context and the context function. Context represents the actual contextual information specific to the message to be sent or that needs to be notified to the subscriber, whereas the context function is evaluated using the publisher’s context and the subscriber’s context to decide whether the current message and context are useful for the subscriber. In this manner, context logic management is decoupled from context management, increasing the flexibility of communication and usage across different applications. Since the default context is empty, context-aware and classical applications can use the same SilboPS, resolving the syntactic mismatch that there is between the two categories. In any case, the possible semantic mismatch is still present because it depends on how each application interprets the data, and it cannot be resolved by an agnostic third party. The IoT environment introduces not only context but scaling challenges too. The number of sensors, the volume of the data that they produce and the number of applications that could be interested in harvesting such data are growing all the time. Today’s response to the above need is cloud computing. However, cloud computing applications need to be able to scale elastically [22]. Unfortunately there is no slicing, as distributed system primitives that support internal state partitioning [33] and hot swapping and current cloud systems like OpenStack or OpenNebula do not provide elastic monitoring out of the box. This means there is a two-sided problem: 1) how to scale an application elastically and 2) how to monitor the application and know when it should scale in or out. E-SilboPS is the elastic version of SilboPS. I t is the solution for the monitoring problem thanks to its content-based publish/subscribe nature and, unlike other solutions [5], it scales efficiently so as to meet workload demand without overprovisioning or underprovisioning. Additionally, it is based on a newly designed algorithm that shows how to add elasticity in an application with different state constraints: stateless, isolated stateful with external coordination and shared stateful with general coordination. Its evaluation shows that it is able to achieve remarkable speedups where the network layer is the main limiting factor: the calculated efficiency (see Figure 5.8) shows how each configuration performs with respect to adjacent configurations. This provides insight into the actual trending of the whole system in order to predict if the next configuration would offset its cost against the resulting gain in notification throughput. Particular attention has been paid to the evaluation of same-cost deployments in order to find out which one is the best for the given workload demand. Finally, the overhead introduced by the different configurations has been estimated to identify the primary limiting factor for throughput. This helps to determine the intrinsic sequential part and base overhead [26] of an optimal versus a suboptimal deployment. Depending on the type of workload, this can be as low as 10% in a local optimum or as high as 60% when an overprovisioned configuration is deployed for a given workload demand. This Karp-Flatt metric estimation is important for system management because it indicates the direction (scale in or out) in which the deployment has to be changed in order to improve its performance instead of simply using a scale-out policy.

Syntactic and Semantic Relationships in Models of Complex Systems: An Ecological Case

In this paper, the authors extend and generalize the methodology based on the dynamics of systems with the use of differential equations as equations of state, allowing that first order transformed functions not only apply to the primitive or original variables, but also doing so to more complex expressions derived from them, and extending the rules that determine the generation of transformed superior to zero order (variable or primitive). Also, it is demonstrated that for all models of complex reality, there exists a complex model from the syntactic and semantic point of view. The theory is exemplified with a concrete model: MARIOLA model.

An approach to ontology for institutional facts in the semantic web

Refinement in software engineering allows a specification to be developed in stages, with design decisions taken at earlier stages constraining the design at later stages. Refinement in complex data models is difficult due to lack of a way of defining constraints, which can be progressively maintained over increasingly detailed refinements. Category theory provides a way of stating wide scale constraints. These constraints lead to a set of design guidelines, which maintain the wide scale constraints under increasing detail. Previous methods of refinement are essentially local, and the proposed method does not interfere very much with these local methods. The result is particularly applicable to semantic web applications, where ontologies provide systems of more or less abstract constraints on systems, which must be implemented and therefore refined by participating systems. With the approach of this paper, the concept of committing to an ontology carries much more force. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.