One gene but different proteins and diseases: the complexity of dystonin and bullous pemphigoid antigen 1.

Since the immunochemical identification of the bullous pemphigoid antigen 230 (BP230) as one of the major target autoantigens of bullous pemphigoid (BP) in 1981, our understanding of this protein has significantly increased. Cloning of its gene, development and characterization of animal models with engineered gene mutations or spontaneous mouse mutations have revealed an unexpected complexity of the gene encoding BP230. The latter, now called dystonin (DST), is composed of at least 100 exons and gives rise to three major isoforms, an epithelial, a neuronal and a muscular isoform, named BPAG1e (corresponding to the original BP230), BPAG1a and BPAG1b, respectively. The various BPAG1 isoforms play a key role in fundamental processes, such as cell adhesion, cytoskeleton organization, and cell migration. Genetic defects of BPAG1 isoforms are the culprits of epidermolysis bullosa and complex, devastating neurological diseases. In this review, we summarize recent advances of our knowledge about several BPAG1 isoforms, their role in various biological processes and in human diseases.

Rethinking ERP-Outsourcing Decisions for Leveraging Technological and Preserving Business Knowledge

During the selection, implementation and stabilization phases, as well as the operations and optimization phase of an ERP system (ERP-lifecycle), numerous companies consider to utilize the support of an external service provider. This paper analyses how different categories of knowledge influence the sourcing decision of crucial tasks within the ERP lifecycle. Based on a review of the IS outsourcing literature, essential knowledge-related determinants for the IS outsourcing decision are presented and aggregated in a structural model. It will be hypothesized that internal deficits in technological knowledge in comparison to external vendors as well as the specificity of the synthesis of special technological and specific business knowledge have a profound impact on the outsourcing decision. Then, a classification framework will be developed which facilitates the assignment of various tasks within the ERP lifecycle to their respective knowledge categories and knowledge carriers which might be internal or external stakeholders. The configuaration task will be used as an example to illustrate how the structural model and the classification framework may be applied to evaluate the outsourcing of tasks within the ERP lifecycle.

Preferences for the organization of long-term follow-up in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

PURPOSE As survival rates of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients increase, a growing number of AYA cancer survivors need follow-up care. However, there is little research on their preferences for follow-up care. We aimed to (1) describe AYA cancer survivors' preferences for the organization and content of follow-up care, (2) describe their preferences for different models of follow-up, and (3) investigate clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with preferences for the different models. METHODS AYA cancer survivors (diagnosed with cancer at age 16-25 years; ≥5 years after diagnosis) were identified through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. Survivors completed a questionnaire on follow-up attendance, preferences for organizational aspects of follow-up care (what is important during follow-up, what should be included during appointments, what specialists should be involved, location), models of follow-up (telephone/questionnaire, general practitioner (GP), pediatric oncologist, medical oncologist, multidisciplinary team), and sociodemographic characteristics. Information on tumor and treatment was available through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. RESULTS Of 389 contacted survivors, 160 (41.1 %) participated and 92 (57.5 %) reported still attending follow-up. Medical aspects of follow-up care were more important than general aspects (p < 0.001). Among different organizational models, follow-up by a medical oncologist was rated higher than all other models (p = 0.002). Non-attenders of follow-up rated GP-led follow-up significantly higher than attenders (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION Swiss AYA cancer survivors valued medical content of follow-up and showed a preference for medical oncologist-led follow-up. Implementation of different models of follow-up care might improve accessibility and attendance among AYA cancer survivors.

Family Court Judges' Training, Background, and Child Development Knowledge: Associations with Child Custody Decision Making

Family court judges are often asked to make inferences about - or directly interview children to ascertain - children's custody preferences and their maturity to express such preferences. These estimates of children's developmental maturity are important to the judges' considerations of children's "best interests" in custody cases. The research literature describing family court judges' background, education, training, and knowledge about child development is scant. With appropriate child development knowledge, judges should be better able to identify the developmental stages at which children have the cognitive and social capabilities to communicate directly their placement wishes or concerns. The current study is the first to examine judges' estimates of - and actual tests of - their child development knowledge, their training/education, and their application of this knowledge to their decisions to involve children as participants in contested custody cases.

UNDERSTANDING NURSE CREATED COGNITIVE ARTIFACTS: PERSONALLY-CREATED-COGNITIVE-ARTIFACTS AS EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS OF DISTRIBUTED COGNITION

Manuscript 1: “Conceptual Analysis: Externalizing Nursing Knowledge” We use concept analysis to establish that the report tool nurses prepare, carry, reference, amend, and use as a temporary data repository are examples of cognitive artifacts. This tool, integrally woven throughout the work and practice of nurses, is important to cognition and clinical decision-making. Establishing the tool as a cognitive artifact will support new dimensions of study. Such studies can characterize how this report tool supports cognition, internal representation of knowledge and skills, and external representation of knowledge of the nurse. Manuscript 2: “Research Methods: Exploring Cognitive Work” The purpose of this paper is to describe a complex, cross-sectional, multi-method approach to study of personal cognitive artifacts in the clinical environment. The complex data arrays present in these cognitive artifacts warrant the use of multiple methods of data collection. Use of a less robust research design may result in an incomplete understanding of the meaning, value, content, and relationships between personal cognitive artifacts in the clinical environment and the cognitive work of the user. Manuscript 3: “Making the Cognitive Work of Registered Nurses Visible” Purpose: Knowledge representations and structures are created and used by registered nurses to guide patient care. Understanding is limited regarding how these knowledge representations, or cognitive artifacts, contribute to working memory, prioritization, organization, cognition, and decision-making. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize the role a specific cognitive artifact knowledge representation and structure as it contributed to the cognitive work of the registered nurse. Methods: Data collection was completed, using qualitative research methods, by shadowing and interviewing 25 registered nurses. Data analysis employed triangulation and iterative analytic processes. Results: Nurse cognitive artifacts support recall, data evaluation, decision-making, organization, and prioritization. These cognitive artifacts demonstrated spatial, longitudinal, chronologic, visual, and personal cues to support the cognitive work of nurses. Conclusions: Nurse cognitive artifacts are an important adjunct to the cognitive work of nurses, and directly support patient care. Nurses need to be able to configure their cognitive artifact in ways that are meaningful and support their internal knowledge representations.

Criteria of election of postgraduate courses in graduated students of technological/ humanistic/ artistic professions : Subjective and contextual involvements to arrive at the conclusion of them

El aumento en la cantidad de estudios de posgrado y de sus cursantes derivados de la demanda por mayores credenciales académicas en lo laboral y por la búsqueda personal para especializarse profesionalmente, es un fenómeno observado en Argentina desde mediados de los años 90. Obtener el título final de estos estudios resulta un porcentaje muy inferior en relación al número de sus inscriptos. Tales motivos focalizaron nuestra atención para analizar tanto los criterios de elección del posgrado como las condiciones contextuales y subjetivas para alcanzar la titulación. Este estudio, de tipo cualitativo, investiga en tres carreras de Especialización que se cursan en diferentes Universidades nacionales , los aspectos de su organización y estilo propuesto para cursar y lograr la finalización de los estudios, así como las motivaciones de la elección de cursantes y egresados en tres ramas diferentes: artística, humanística y tecnológica. El conocimiento sobre la lógica de la organización y la particularidad del objeto de estudio de cada carrera permite analizar diferencias y semejanzas entre ellas aportando algunas propuestas para considerar en programas de formación; mientras que los trayectos de cursantes y egresados explican aspectos subjetivos que intervienen en la finalización o no del posgrado.

Criteria of election of postgraduate courses in graduated students of technological/ humanistic/ artistic professions : Subjective and contextual involvements to arrive at the conclusion of them

El aumento en la cantidad de estudios de posgrado y de sus cursantes derivados de la demanda por mayores credenciales académicas en lo laboral y por la búsqueda personal para especializarse profesionalmente, es un fenómeno observado en Argentina desde mediados de los años 90. Obtener el título final de estos estudios resulta un porcentaje muy inferior en relación al número de sus inscriptos. Tales motivos focalizaron nuestra atención para analizar tanto los criterios de elección del posgrado como las condiciones contextuales y subjetivas para alcanzar la titulación. Este estudio, de tipo cualitativo, investiga en tres carreras de Especialización que se cursan en diferentes Universidades nacionales , los aspectos de su organización y estilo propuesto para cursar y lograr la finalización de los estudios, así como las motivaciones de la elección de cursantes y egresados en tres ramas diferentes: artística, humanística y tecnológica. El conocimiento sobre la lógica de la organización y la particularidad del objeto de estudio de cada carrera permite analizar diferencias y semejanzas entre ellas aportando algunas propuestas para considerar en programas de formación; mientras que los trayectos de cursantes y egresados explican aspectos subjetivos que intervienen en la finalización o no del posgrado.

Criteria of election of postgraduate courses in graduated students of technological/ humanistic/ artistic professions : Subjective and contextual involvements to arrive at the conclusion of them

El aumento en la cantidad de estudios de posgrado y de sus cursantes derivados de la demanda por mayores credenciales académicas en lo laboral y por la búsqueda personal para especializarse profesionalmente, es un fenómeno observado en Argentina desde mediados de los años 90. Obtener el título final de estos estudios resulta un porcentaje muy inferior en relación al número de sus inscriptos. Tales motivos focalizaron nuestra atención para analizar tanto los criterios de elección del posgrado como las condiciones contextuales y subjetivas para alcanzar la titulación. Este estudio, de tipo cualitativo, investiga en tres carreras de Especialización que se cursan en diferentes Universidades nacionales , los aspectos de su organización y estilo propuesto para cursar y lograr la finalización de los estudios, así como las motivaciones de la elección de cursantes y egresados en tres ramas diferentes: artística, humanística y tecnológica. El conocimiento sobre la lógica de la organización y la particularidad del objeto de estudio de cada carrera permite analizar diferencias y semejanzas entre ellas aportando algunas propuestas para considerar en programas de formación; mientras que los trayectos de cursantes y egresados explican aspectos subjetivos que intervienen en la finalización o no del posgrado.

The Global Plankton Database: an inventory and data from the Former Soviet Union expeditions

At present time, there is a lack of knowledge on the interannual climate-related variability of zooplankton communities of the tropical Atlantic, central Mediterranean Sea, Caspian Sea, and Aral Sea, due to the absence of appropriate databases. In the mid latitudes, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is the dominant mode of atmospheric fluctuations over eastern North America, the northern Atlantic Ocean and Europe. Therefore, one of the issues that need to be addressed through data synthesis is the evaluation of interannual patterns in species abundance and species diversity over these regions in regard to the NAO. The database has been used to investigate the ecological role of the NAO in interannual variations of mesozooplankton abundance and biomass along the zonal array of the NAO influence. Basic approach to the proposed research involved: (1) development of co-operation between experts and data holders in Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UK, and USA to rescue and compile the oceanographic data sets and release them on CD-ROM, (2) organization and compilation of a database based on FSU cruises to the above regions, (3) analysis of the basin-scale interannual variability of the zooplankton species abundance, biomass, and species diversity.

Chapter 3 Knowledge Exchanges and Innovation in Connected Firms: Evidence from Upstream-Downstream Relationships

This paper proposes evidences for linking innovation and knowledge exchanges in developing economies towards a comprehensive theory of new economic geography in the knowledge based spatial economy. Firms which dispatched engineers to customers achieved more innovations than firms which did not. Mutual sharing of knowledge also stimulates innovations. A just-in-time relationship is effective for dealing with upgrading production process. But such strong complementarities with partners are not effective for product innovation.. These evidences support the hypothesis that face-to-face communication and complementarities among production linkages have different roles in knowledge creation.

Chairship system and decision making by consensus in international agreements : the case of ASEAN

How are different positions reconciled under decision making by consensus in international agreements? This article aims to answer this question. Consensus rule provides each participant a veto, which risks resulting in non-agreement. Taking ASEAN as a case study of international organizations that have adopted consensus rule as the main decision-making procedure, this article presents the chairship system as an analytical scheme to examine how different positions are or are not reconciled under consensus rule. The system is based on conventional knowledge regarding the chair in international conference, which can be defined as an institution where the role of the chair is taken by one member state in an international organization and plays a role in agenda-setting. The agenda-setting power given to the chair varies across organizations. This article assumes that the chair in ASEAN is given a relatively strong agenda-setting power to enable the chair to reach agreements and bias such agreements in its own favor.

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).

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

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

A formalism and method for representing and reasoning with process models authored by subject matter experts

Enabling Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to formulate knowledge without the intervention of Knowledge Engineers (KEs) requires providing SMEs with methods and tools that abstract the underlying knowledge representation and allow them to focus on modeling activities. Bridging the gap between SME-authored models and their representation is challenging, especially in the case of complex knowledge types like processes, where aspects like frame management, data, and control flow need to be addressed. In this paper, we describe how SME-authored process models can be provided with an operational semantics and grounded in a knowledge representation language like F-logic in order to support process-related reasoning. The main results of this work include a formalism for process representation and a mechanism for automatically translating process diagrams into executable code following such formalism. From all the process models authored by SMEs during evaluation 82% were well-formed, all of which executed correctly. Additionally, the two optimizations applied to the code generation mechanism produced a performance improvement at reasoning time of 25% and 30% with respect to the base case, respectively.

Scaling in Soil and Other Complex Porous Media

Scaling is becoming an increasingly important topic in the earth and environmental sciences as researchers attempt to understand complex natural systems through the lens of an ever-increasing set of methods and scales. The guest editors introduce the papers in this issue’s special section and present an overview of some of the work being done. Scaling remains one of the most challenging topics in earth and environmental sciences, forming a basis for our understanding of process development across the multiple scales that make up the subsurface environment. Tremendous progress has been made in discovery, explanation, and applications of scaling. And yet much more needs to be done and is being done as part of the modern quest to quantify, analyze, and manage the complexity of natural systems. Understanding and succinct representation of scaling properties can unveil underlying relationships between system structure and response functions, improve parameterization of natural variability and heterogeneity, and help us address societal needs by effectively merging knowledge acquired at different scales.