Ontology Requirements Specification

The goal of the ontology requirements specification activity is to state why the ontology is being built, what its intended uses are, who the end users are, and which requirements the ontology should fulfill. This chapter presents detailed methodological guidelines for specifying ontology requirements efficiently. These guidelines will help ontology engineers to capture ontology requirements and produce the ontology requirements specification document (ORSD). The ORSD will play a key role during the ontology development process because it facilitates, among other activities, (1) the search and reuse of existing knowledge resources with the aim of reengineering them into ontologies, (2) the search and reuse of ontological resources (ontologies, ontology modules, ontology statements as well as ontology design patterns), and (3) the verification of the ontology along the ontology development.

Supporting requirement elicitation and ontology testing in knowledge graph engineering

Knowledge graphs and ontologies are closely related concepts in the field of knowledge representation. In recent years, knowledge graphs have gained increasing popularity and are serving as essential components in many knowledge engineering projects that view them as crucial to their success. The conceptual foundation of the knowledge graph is provided by ontologies. Ontology modeling is an iterative engineering process that consists of steps such as the elicitation and formalization of requirements, the development, testing, refactoring, and release of the ontology. The testing of the ontology is a crucial and occasionally overlooked step of the process due to the lack of integrated tools to support it. As a result of this gap in the state-of-the-art, the testing of the ontology is completed manually, which requires a considerable amount of time and effort from the ontology engineers. The lack of tool support is noticed in the requirement elicitation process as well. In this aspect, the rise in the adoption and accessibility of knowledge graphs allows for the development and use of automated tools to assist with the elicitation of requirements from such a complementary source of data. Therefore, this doctoral research is focused on developing methods and tools that support the requirement elicitation and testing steps of an ontology engineering process. To support the testing of the ontology, we have developed XDTesting, a web application that is integrated with the GitHub platform that serves as an ontology testing manager. Concurrently, to support the elicitation and documentation of competency questions, we have defined and implemented RevOnt, a method to extract competency questions from knowledge graphs. Both methods are evaluated through their implementation and the results are promising.

Justified Fault-Ride-Through Requirements for Wind Turbines in Power Systems

In this paper, a novel adaptive strategy to obtain technically justified fault-ride-through requirements for wind turbines (WTs) is proposed. The main objective is to promote an effective integration of wind turbines into power systems with still low penetration levels of wind power based on technical and economical considerations. The level of requirement imposed by the strategy is increased stepwise over time, depending on system characteristics and on wind power penetration level. The idea behind is to introduce stringent requirements only when they are technically needed for a reliable and secure power system operation. Voltage stability support and fault-ride-through requirements are considered in the strategy. Simulations are based on the Chilean transmission network, a midsize isolated power system with still low penetration levels of wind power. Simulations include fixed speed induction generators and doubly fed induction generators. The effects on power system stability of the wind power injections, integrated into the network by adopting the adaptive strategy, are compared with the effects that have the same installed capacity of wind power but only considering WTs able to fulfill stringent requirements (fault-ride-through capability and support voltage stability). Based on simulations and international experience, technically justified requirements for the Chilean case are proposed.

Derivation and consistency checking of models in early software product line engineering

Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Doutor em Engenharia Informática

Requirements Management in the Software Development Process

Ohjelmistokehitys on monimutkainen prosessi. Yksi keskeisistä tekijöistä siinä on ohjelmistolle asetettavat vaatimukset. Näitä vaatimuksia on hyvin monenlaisia, ja eri tasoisia; toivotusta toiminnallisuudesta hyvinkin yksityiskohtaisiin vaatimuksiin. Näiden vaatimusten hallinta on myöskin hyvin monitahoista, vaikkakin se on kirjallisuudessa esitetty selkeänä prosessissa, joka on sarja toisistaan erottuviavaiheita. Työn painopiste oli näiden vaatimusten muutoksen ja valmiiseen ohjelmistoon kohdistuvan palautteen hallinnassa, ja kuinka vaatimustenhallintaohjelmisto voisi olla avuksi näissä prosesseissa. Vaatimustenhallintatyökalun käyttö ei sinällään ratkaise mitään ongelmia, mutta se suo puitteet parantaa vaatimusten hallitsemista. Työkalun käytöstä on muun muassa seuraavia etuja: vaatimusten keskitetty varastointi, käyttäjäoikeuksien määrittely koskien eri käyttäjiä ja heidän pääsyään näkemään tai muuttamaan tietoa, muutoksenhallintaprosessin hallinta, muutosten vaikutuksen analysointi ja jäljitettävyys ja pääsy tietoihin web-selaimella.

Automation concept for an electrically excited synchronous motor: Setup and requirements specification

This bachelor’s thesis is a part of the research project realized in the summer 2011 in Lappeenranta University of Technology. The goal of the project was to create an automation concept for controlling an electrically excited synchronous motor. This thesis concentrates on the setup and requirements specification part of the concept. The setup consists of ABB AC500 as the PLC master device, DCS800 as an exciter and ACS800 as a frequency converter. The ACS800 frequency converter uses permanent magnet synchronous machine software to control the stator’s magnetic field, the DC drive handles the excitation and the AC500 PLC master controls the communication and functionality of the system. The requirements specification briefly explains the general over-view of the concept, the use and functionality of the PLC program and the requirements needed for the whole concept and the PLC program to work as intended.

Marine Engineering Training in India -A Pedagogic Introspection

Indian marine engineers are renowned for employment globally due to their knowledge, skill and reliability. This praiseworthy status has been achieved mainly due to the systematic training imparted to marine engineering cadets. However, in an era of advancing technology, marine engineering training has to remain dynamic to imbibe latest technology as well as to meet the demands of the shipping industry. New subjects of studies have to be included in the curriculum in a timely manner taking into consideration the industry requirements and best practices in shipping. Technical competence of marine engineers also has to be subjected to changes depending upon the needs of the ever growing and over regulated shipping industry. Besides. certain soft skills are to be developed and improved amongst the marine engineers in order to alter or amend the personality traits leading to their career success.If timely corrective action is taken. Indian marine engineers can be in still greater demand for employment in global maritime field. In order to enhance the employability of our mmine engineers by improving their quality, a study of marine engineers in general and class IV marine engineers in particular was conducted based on three distinct surveys, viz., survey among senior marine engineers, survey among employers of marine engineers and survey of class IV marine engineers themselves.The surveys have been planned and questionnaires have been designed to focus the study of marine engineer officer class IV from the point of view of the three distinct groups of maritime personnels. As a result of this, the strength and weakness of class IV marine engineers are identified with regard to their performance on board ships, acquisition of necessary technical skills. employability and career success. The criteria of essential qualities of a marine engineer are classified as academic, technical, social, psychological. physical, mental, emergency responsive, communicative and leadership, and have been assessed for a practicing marine engineer by statistical analysis of data collected from surveys. These are assessed for class IV marine engineers from the point of view of senior marine engineers and employers separately. The Endings are delineated and graphically depicted in this thesis.Besides. six pertinent personality traits of a marine engineer viz. self esteem. learning style. decision making. motivation. team work and listening self inventory have been subjected to study and their correlation with career success have been established wherever possible. This is carried out to develop a theoretical framework to understand what leads a marine engineer to his career attainment. This enables the author to estimate the personality strengths and weaknesses of a serving marine engineer and eventually to deduce possible corrective measures or modifications in marine engineering training in India.Maritime training is largely based on International Conventions on Standard of Training. Certification and Watch keeping for Seafarers 1995. its associated Code and Merchant Shipping (STCW for Seafarers) Rules 1998. Further, Maritime Education, Training and Assessment (META) Manual was subjected to a critical scrutiny and relevant Endings of thc surveys arc superimposed on the existing rule requirement and curriculum. Views of senior marine engineers and executives of various shipping companies are taken into account before arriving at the revision of syllabus of marine engineering courses. Modifications in the pattern of workshop and sea service for graduate mechanical engineering trainees are recommended. Desirable age brackets of junior engineers and chief engineers. use of Training and Assessment Record book (TAR Book) during training etc. have also been evaluated.As a result of the pedagogic introspection of the existing system of marine engineering training in India. in this thesis, a revised pattern of workshop training of six months duration for graduate mechanical engineers. revised pattern of sea service training of one year duration and modified now diagram incorporating the above have been arrived at. Effects of various personality traits on career success have been established along with certain findings for improvement of desirable personality traits of marine engineers.

Requirements Capture: Using UML Use Cases

This is a presentation for our year one INFO1008 course of Computational Systems. It covers the need for requirements capture and the difficulty of building a specification based on user information. We present UML Use Cases and Use Case diagrams as a way of capturing requirements from the users point of view in a semi-structured way.

Reasoning about Requirements Evolution Using Clustered Belief Revision

During the development of system requirements, software system specifications are often inconsistent. Inconsistencies may arise for different reasons, for example, when multiple conflicting viewpoints are embodied in the specification, or when the specification itself is at a transient stage of evolution. These inconsistencies cannot always be resolved immediately. As a result, we argue that a formal framework for the analysis of evolving specifications should be able to tolerate inconsistency by allowing reasoning in the presence of inconsistency without trivialisation, and circumvent inconsistency by enabling impact analyses of potential changes to be carried out. This paper shows how clustered belief revision can help in this process. Clustered belief revision allows for the grouping of requirements with similar functionality into clusters and the assignment of priorities between them. By analysing the result of a cluster, an engineer can either choose to rectify problems in the specification or to postpone the changes until more information becomes available.

Um método semi-automatizado para elicitação de requisitos de acessibilidade Web

In the context of Software Engineering, web accessibility is gaining more room, establishing itself as an important quality attribute. This fact is due to initiatives of institutions such as the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) and the introduction of norms and laws such as Section 508 that underlie the importance of developing accessible Web sites and applications. Despite these improvements, the lack of web accessibility is still a persistent problem, and could be related to the moment or phase in which this requirement is solved within the development process. From the moment when Web accessibility is generally regarded as a programming problem or treated when the application is already developed entirely. Thus, consider accessibility already during activities of analysis and requirements specification shows itself a strategy to facilitate project progress, avoiding rework in advanced phases of software development because of possible errors, or omissions in the elicitation. The objective of this research is to develop a method and a tool to support requirements elicitation of web accessibility. The strategy for the requirements elicitation of this method is grounded by the Goal-Oriented approach NFR Framework and the use of catalogs NFRs, created based on the guidelines contained in WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guideline) proposed by W3C

The 3C cooperation model applied to the classical requirement analysis

Aspects related to the users' cooperative work are not considered in the traditional approach of software engineering, since the user is viewed independently of his/her workplace environment or group, with the individual model generalized to the study of collective behavior of all users. This work proposes a process for software requirements to address issues involving cooperative work in information systems that provide distributed coordination in the users' actions and the communication among them occurs indirectly through the data entered while using the software. To achieve this goal, this research uses ergonomics, the 3C cooperation model, awareness and software engineering concepts. Action-research is used as a research methodology applied in three cycles during the development of a corporate workflow system in a technological research company. This article discusses the third cycle, which corresponds to the process that deals with the refinement of the cooperative work requirements with the software in actual use in the workplace, where the inclusion of a computer system changes the users' workplace, from the face to face interaction to the interaction mediated by the software. The results showed that the highest degree of users' awareness about their activities and other system users contribute to a decrease in their errors and in the inappropriate use of the system.

Computer Aided Surgery for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Clinical Requirement Analysis and System Design

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of renal stones and other related renal diseases has proved its efficacy and has stood the test of time compared with open surgical methods and extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy. However, access to the collecting system of the kidney is not easy because the available intra-operative image modalities only provide a two dimensional view of the surgical scenario. With this lack of visual information, several punctures are often necessary which, increases the risk of renal bleeding, splanchnic, vascular or pulmonary injury, or damage to the collecting system which sometimes makes the continuation of the procedure impossible. In order to address this problem, this paper proposes a workflow for introduction of a stereotactic needle guidance system for PCNL procedures. An analysis of the imposed clinical requirements, and a instrument guidance approach to provide the physician with a more intuitive planning and visual guidance to access the collecting system of the kidney are presented.

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).

Application of knowledge engineering acquisition techniques to requirements capture: a case study

In this paper we want to point out, by means of a case study, the importance of incorporating some knowledge engineering techniques to the processes of software engineering. Precisely, we are referring to the knowledge eduction techniques. We know the difficulty of requirements acquisition and its importance to minimise the risks of a software project, both in the development phase and in the maintenance phase. To capture the functional requirements use cases are generally used. However, as we will show in this paper, this technique is insufficient when the problem domain knowledge is only in the "experts? mind". In this situation, the combination of the use case with eduction techniques, in every development phase, will let us to discover the correct requirements.