Dynamic identification of structures: experimental assessment of modal parameteres through methods in frequency domain, in time-frequency domain and model updating

Among the experimental methods commonly used to define the behaviour of a full scale system, dynamic tests are the most complete and efficient procedures. A dynamic test is an experimental process, which would define a set of characteristic parameters of the dynamic behaviour of the system, such as natural frequencies of the structure, mode shapes and the corresponding modal damping values associated. An assessment of these modal characteristics can be used both to verify the theoretical assumptions of the project, to monitor the performance of the structural system during its operational use. The thesis is structured in the following chapters: The first introductive chapter recalls some basic notions of dynamics of structure, focusing the discussion on the problem of systems with multiply degrees of freedom (MDOF), which can represent a generic real system under study, when it is excited with harmonic force or in free vibration. The second chapter is entirely centred on to the problem of dynamic identification process of a structure, if it is subjected to an experimental test in forced vibrations. It first describes the construction of FRF through classical FFT of the recorded signal. A different method, also in the frequency domain, is subsequently introduced; it allows accurately to compute the FRF using the geometric characteristics of the ellipse that represents the direct input-output comparison. The two methods are compared and then the attention is focused on some advantages of the proposed methodology. The third chapter focuses on the study of real structures when they are subjected to experimental test, where the force is not known, like in an ambient or impact test. In this analysis we decided to use the CWT, which allows a simultaneous investigation in the time and frequency domain of a generic signal x(t). The CWT is first introduced to process free oscillations, with excellent results both in terms of frequencies, dampings and vibration modes. The application in the case of ambient vibrations defines accurate modal parameters of the system, although on the damping some important observations should be made. The fourth chapter is still on the problem of post processing data acquired after a vibration test, but this time through the application of discrete wavelet transform (DWT). In the first part the results obtained by the DWT are compared with those obtained by the application of CWT. Particular attention is given to the use of DWT as a tool for filtering the recorded signal, in fact in case of ambient vibrations the signals are often affected by the presence of a significant level of noise. The fifth chapter focuses on another important aspect of the identification process: the model updating. In this chapter, starting from the modal parameters obtained from some environmental vibration tests, performed by the University of Porto in 2008 and the University of Sheffild on the Humber Bridge in England, a FE model of the bridge is defined, in order to define what type of model is able to capture more accurately the real dynamic behaviour of the bridge. The sixth chapter outlines the necessary conclusions of the presented research. They concern the application of a method in the frequency domain in order to evaluate the modal parameters of a structure and its advantages, the advantages in applying a procedure based on the use of wavelet transforms in the process of identification in tests with unknown input and finally the problem of 3D modeling of systems with many degrees of freedom and with different types of uncertainty.

Self-organization of Functioning Process of Expert System with the Use of Subject Domain Ontology

Optimization of design, creation, functioning and accompaniment processes of expert system is the important problem of artificial intelligence theory and decisions making methods techniques. In this paper the approach to its solving with the use of technology, being based on methodology of systems analysis, ontology of subject domain, principles and methods of self-organisation, is offered. The aspects of such approach realization, being based on construction of accordance between the ontology hierarchical structure and sequence of questions in automated systems for examination, are expounded.

Mathematical Models of Domain Ontologies

* This paper was made according to the program No 14 of fundamental scientific research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the project "Intellectual Systems Based on Multilevel Domain Models".

An Analysis of Some Relations Among Domain Ontologies

* This paper was made according to the program of fundamental scientific research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences «Mathematical simulation and intellectual systems», the project "Theoretical foundation of the intellectual systems based on ontologies for intellectual support of scientific researches".

A Mathematical Apparatus for Domain Ontology Simulation. An Extendable Language of Applied Logic

* This paper was made according to the program of fundamental scientific research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences «Mathematical simulation and intellectual systems», the project "Theoretical foundation of the intellectual systems based on ontologies for intellectual support of scientific researches".

A Mathematical Apparatus for Domain Ontology Simulation. Logical Relationship Systems

* This paper was made according to the program of fundamental scientific research of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences «Mathematical simulation and intellectual systems», the project "Theoretical foundation of the intellectual systems based on ontologies for intellectual support of scientific researches".

Multi-Domain Information Model

The Multi-Domain Information Model for organisation of the information bases is presented.

FTMOntology: An ontology to fill the semantic gap between music, mood, personality, and human physiology

This paper presents a domain ontology, the FeelingTheMusic Ontology - FTMOntology. FTMOntology is designed to represent the complex domain of music and how it relates to other domains like mood, personality and physiology. This includes representing the main concepts and relations of music domain with each of the above-mentioned domains. The concepts and relations between music, mood, personality and physiology. The main contribution of this work is to model and relate these different domains in a consistent ontology. © 2011 Springer-Verlag.

Formalizing a Conceptual Framework of Work Domain Knowledge

Background: The failure rate of health information systems is high, partially due to fragmented, incomplete, or incorrect identification and description of specific and critical domain requirements. In order to systematically transform the requirements of work into real information system, an explicit conceptual framework is essential to summarize the work requirements and guide system design. Recently, Butler, Zhang, and colleagues proposed a conceptual framework called Work Domain Ontology (WDO) to formally represent users’ work. This WDO approach has been successfully demonstrated in a real world design project on aircraft scheduling. However, as a top level conceptual framework, this WDO has not defined an explicit and well specified schema (WDOS) , and it does not have a generalizable and operationalized procedure that can be easily applied to develop WDO. Moreover, WDO has not been developed for any concrete healthcare domain. These limitations hinder the utility of WDO in real world information system in general and in health information system in particular. Objective: The objective of this research is to formalize the WDOS, operationalize a procedure to develop WDO, and evaluate WDO approach using Self-Nutrition Management (SNM) work domain. Method: Concept analysis was implemented to formalize WDOS. Focus group interview was conducted to capture concepts in SNM work domain. Ontology engineering methods were adopted to model SNM WDO. Part of the concepts under the primary goal “staying healthy” for SNM were selected and transformed into a semi-structured survey to evaluate the acceptance, explicitness, completeness, consistency, experience dependency of SNM WDO. Result: Four concepts, “goal, operation, object and constraint”, were identified and formally modeled in WDOS with definitions and attributes. 72 SNM WDO concepts under primary goal were selected and transformed into semi-structured survey questions. The evaluation indicated that the major concepts of SNM WDO were accepted by 41 overweight subjects. SNM WDO is generally independent of user domain experience but partially dependent on SNM application experience. 23 of 41 paired concepts had significant correlations. Two concepts were identified as ambiguous concepts. 8 extra concepts were recommended towards the completeness of SNM WDO. Conclusion: The preliminary WDOS is ready with an operationalized procedure. SNM WDO has been developed to guide future SNM application design. This research is an essential step towards Work-Centered Design (WCD).

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).

Social tags and linked data for ontology development: a case study in the financial domain

We describe a domain ontology development approach that extracts domain terms from folksonomies and enrich them with data and vocabularies from the Linked Open Data cloud. As a result, we obtain lightweight domain ontologies that combine the emergent knowledge of social tagging systems with formal knowledge from Ontologies. In order to illustrate the feasibility of our approach, we have produced an ontology in the financial domain from tags available in Delicious, using DBpedia, OpenCyc and UMBEL as additional knowledge sources.

Ontology-Based Model of Representation of Knowledge about Language Mappings

The paper presents a short review of some systems for program transformations performed on the basis of the internal intermediate representations of these programs. Many systems try to support several languages of representation of the source texts of programs and solve the task of their translation into the internal representation. This task is still a challenge as it is effort-consuming. To reduce the effort, different systems of translator construction, ready compilers with ready grammars of outside designers are used. Though this approach saves the effort, it has its drawbacks and constraints. The paper presents the general idea of using the mapping approach to solve the task within the framework of program transformations and overcome the disadvantages of the existing systems. The paper demonstrates a fragment of the ontology model of high-level languages mappings onto the single representation and gives the example of how the description of (a fragment) a particular mapping is represented in accordance with the ontology model.

A generic model of execution for synthesizing domain-specific models

Software engineering researchers are challenged to provide increasingly more powerful levels of abstractions to address the rising complexity inherent in software solutions. One new development paradigm that places models as abstraction at the forefront of the development process is Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD). MDSD considers models as first class artifacts, extending the capability for engineers to use concepts from the problem domain of discourse to specify apropos solutions. A key component in MDSD is domain-specific modeling languages (DSMLs) which are languages with focused expressiveness, targeting a specific taxonomy of problems. The de facto approach used is to first transform DSML models to an intermediate artifact in a HLL e.g., Java or C++, then execute that resulting code.^ Our research group has developed a class of DSMLs, referred to as interpreted DSMLs (i-DSMLs), where models are directly interpreted by a specialized execution engine with semantics based on model changes at runtime. This execution engine uses a layered architecture and is referred to as a domain-specific virtual machine (DSVM). As the domain-specific model being executed descends the layers of the DSVM the semantic gap between the user-defined model and the services being provided by the underlying infrastructure is closed. The focus of this research is the synthesis engine, the layer in the DSVM which transforms i-DSML models into executable scripts for the next lower layer to process.^ The appeal of an i-DSML is constrained as it possesses unique semantics contained within the DSVM. Existing DSVMs for i-DSMLs exhibit tight coupling between the implicit model of execution and the semantics of the domain, making it difficult to develop DSVMs for new i-DSMLs without a significant investment in resources.^ At the onset of this research only one i-DSML had been created for the user- centric communication domain using the aforementioned approach. This i-DSML is the Communication Modeling Language (CML) and its DSVM is the Communication Virtual machine (CVM). A major problem with the CVM's synthesis engine is that the domain-specific knowledge (DSK) and the model of execution (MoE) are tightly interwoven consequently subsequent DSVMs would need to be developed from inception with no reuse of expertise.^ This dissertation investigates how to decouple the DSK from the MoE and subsequently producing a generic model of execution (GMoE) from the remaining application logic. This GMoE can be reused to instantiate synthesis engines for DSVMs in other domains. The generalized approach to developing the model synthesis component of i-DSML interpreters utilizes a reusable framework loosely coupled to DSK as swappable framework extensions.^ This approach involves first creating an i-DSML and its DSVM for a second do- main, demand-side smartgrid, or microgrid energy management, and designing the synthesis engine so that the DSK and MoE are easily decoupled. To validate the utility of the approach, the SEs are instantiated using the GMoE and DSKs of the two aforementioned domains and an empirical study to support our claim of reduced developmental effort is performed.^

A Generic Model of Execution for Synthesizing Domain-Specific Models

Software engineering researchers are challenged to provide increasingly more pow- erful levels of abstractions to address the rising complexity inherent in software solu- tions. One new development paradigm that places models as abstraction at the fore- front of the development process is Model-Driven Software Development (MDSD). MDSD considers models as first class artifacts, extending the capability for engineers to use concepts from the problem domain of discourse to specify apropos solutions. A key component in MDSD is domain-specific modeling languages (DSMLs) which are languages with focused expressiveness, targeting a specific taxonomy of problems. The de facto approach used is to first transform DSML models to an intermediate artifact in a HLL e.g., Java or C++, then execute that resulting code. Our research group has developed a class of DSMLs, referred to as interpreted DSMLs (i-DSMLs), where models are directly interpreted by a specialized execution engine with semantics based on model changes at runtime. This execution engine uses a layered architecture and is referred to as a domain-specific virtual machine (DSVM). As the domain-specific model being executed descends the layers of the DSVM the semantic gap between the user-defined model and the services being provided by the underlying infrastructure is closed. The focus of this research is the synthesis engine, the layer in the DSVM which transforms i-DSML models into executable scripts for the next lower layer to process. The appeal of an i-DSML is constrained as it possesses unique semantics contained within the DSVM. Existing DSVMs for i-DSMLs exhibit tight coupling between the implicit model of execution and the semantics of the domain, making it difficult to develop DSVMs for new i-DSMLs without a significant investment in resources. At the onset of this research only one i-DSML had been created for the user- centric communication domain using the aforementioned approach. This i-DSML is the Communication Modeling Language (CML) and its DSVM is the Communication Virtual machine (CVM). A major problem with the CVM’s synthesis engine is that the domain-specific knowledge (DSK) and the model of execution (MoE) are tightly interwoven consequently subsequent DSVMs would need to be developed from inception with no reuse of expertise. This dissertation investigates how to decouple the DSK from the MoE and sub- sequently producing a generic model of execution (GMoE) from the remaining appli- cation logic. This GMoE can be reused to instantiate synthesis engines for DSVMs in other domains. The generalized approach to developing the model synthesis com- ponent of i-DSML interpreters utilizes a reusable framework loosely coupled to DSK as swappable framework extensions. This approach involves first creating an i-DSML and its DSVM for a second do- main, demand-side smartgrid, or microgrid energy management, and designing the synthesis engine so that the DSK and MoE are easily decoupled. To validate the utility of the approach, the SEs are instantiated using the GMoE and DSKs of the two aforementioned domains and an empirical study to support our claim of reduced developmental effort is performed.

Ontology-Based Workflow Design for the Coordination of Homecare Interventions

Part 20: Health and Care Networks