Feature recognition & tool path generation for 5 axis step-nc machining of free form / irregular contoured surfaces

This research paper presents a five step algorithm to generate tool paths for machining Free form / Irregular Contoured Surface(s) (FICS) by adopting STEP-NC (AP-238) format. In the first step, a parametrized CAD model with FICS is created or imported in UG-NX6.0 CAD package. The second step recognizes the features and calculates a Closeness Index (CI) by comparing them with the B-Splines / Bezier surfaces. The third step utilizes the CI and extracts the necessary data to formulate the blending functions for identified features. In the fourth step Z-level 5 axis tool paths are generated by adopting flat and ball end mill cutters. Finally, in the fifth step, tool paths are integrated with STEP-NC format and validated. All these steps are discussed and explained through a validated industrial component.

Integration of cad/ tool path data for 5-axis step-nc machining of free form / irrregular contoured surfaces

This research paper presents the work on feature recognition, tool path data generation and integration with STEP-NC (AP-238 format) for features having Free form / Irregular Contoured Surface(s) (FICS). Initially, the FICS features are modelled / imported in UG CAD package and a closeness index is generated. This is done by comparing the FICS features with basic B-Splines / Bezier curves / surfaces. Then blending functions are caculated by adopting convolution theorem. Based on the blending functions, contour offsett tool paths are generated and simulated for 5 axis milling environment. Finally, the tool path (CL) data is integrated with STEP-NC (AP-238) format. The tool path algorithm and STEP- NC data is tested with various industrial parts through an automated UFUNC plugin.

Use of expert knowledge to elicit population trends for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

Aim: The koala is a widely distributed Australian marsupial with regional populations that are in rapid decline, are stable or have increased in size. This study examined whether it is possible to use expert elicitation to estimate abundance and trends of populations of this species. Diverse opinions exist about estimates of abundance and, consequently, the status of populations. Location: Eastern and south-eastern Australia Methods: Using a structured, four-step question format, a panel of 15 experts estimated population sizes of koalas and changes in those sizes for bioregions within four states. They provided their lowest plausible estimate, highest plausible estimate, best estimate and their degree of confidence that the true values were contained within these upper and lower estimates. We derived estimates of the mean population size of koalas and associated uncertainties for each bioregion and state. Results: On the basis of estimates of mean population sizes for each bioregion and state, we estimated that the total number of koalas for Australia is 329,000 (range 144,000-605,000) with an estimated average decline of 24% over the past three generations and the next three generations. Estimated percentage of loss in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia was 53%, 26%, 14% and 3%, respectively. Main conclusions: It was not necessary to achieve high levels of certainty or consensus among experts before making informed estimates. A quantitative, scientific method for deriving estimates of koala populations and trends was possible, in the absence of empirical data on abundances.

In step

In Step was a wearable artwork consisting of a pair of embroidered foot bandages and an actuator ‘cushion’ embedded with 15 electromechanical actuator pistons. The bandage was embedded with woven, soft and flexible fabric sensors - interconnected with metallic connecting threads, fasteners and a wireless interface (in a final form). When wrapped around a foot and lower leg the sensors sat on the ball of the toes and heel. This ‘wearable interface’ was then connected wirelessly to a soft sculptural form, which employed actuators to tap gently in response to the qualities of the walk detected by the soft sensors. In this way the ‘tread qualities’ of the walker could then be felt by someone else holding this device against their stomach – thereby allowing pairs of participants to ‘feel’ the tactile qualities of the other's walk. The work was presented both as a working object and via a short videorecorded performance.----- In Step generated innovative new approaches to interface and sensor embedded clothing/footware whilst also creating an evocative vehicle to comment upon contemporary Post Colonial theories of weight and groundedness – particularly the psycho-geographical ‘separation’ from the landscape that inspired Paul Carter’s “environmentally grounded poetics”. The work’s final form also suggested critical new directions for responsive clothing and footwear for the emerging genre of smart textiles.

In-situ one-step hydrothermal synthesis of a lead germanate-graphene composite as a novel anode material for lithium-ion batteries

Lead germanate-graphene nanosheets (PbGeO3-GNS) composites have been prepared by an efficient one-step, in-situ hydrothermal method and were used as anode materials for Li-ion batteries (LIBs). The PbGeO3 nanowires, around 100–200 nm in diameter, are highly encapsulated in a graphene matrix. The lithiation and de-lithiation reaction mechanisms of the PbGeO3 anode during the charge-discharge processes have been investigated by X-ray diffraction and electrochemical characterization. Compared with pure PbGeO3 anode, dramatic improvements in the electrochemical performance of the composite anodes have been obtained. In the voltage window of 0.01–1.50 V, the composite anode with 20 wt.% GNS delivers a discharge capacity of 607 mAh g−1 at 100 mA g−1 after 50 cycles. Even at a high current density of 1600 mA g−1, a capacity of 406 mAh g−1 can be achieved. Therefore, the PbGeO3-GNS composite can be considered as a potential anode material for lithium ion batteries.

Study on variable capacitance diode of (p)nc-Si : H/(n)c-Si heterojunction

Hydrogenated nanocrystalline silicon (nc-Si:H) layers of boron-doped increasing step by step was deposited on n-type crystalline silicon substrate using Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) system. After evaporating Ohm contact electrode on the side of substrate and on the side of nc-Si:H film, a structure of electrode/ (p)nc-Si:H/(n)c-Si/electrode was obtained. It is confirmed by electrical measurement such as I-V curve, C-V curve and DLTS that this is a variable capacitance diode. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Extending snBench to Support a Graphical Programming Interface for a Sensor Network Tasking Language (STEP)

The purpose of this project is the creation of a graphical "programming" interface for a sensor network tasking language called STEP. The graphical interface allows the user to specify a program execution graphically from an extensible pallet of functionalities and save the results as a properly formatted STEP file. Moreover, the software is able to load a file in STEP format and convert it into the corresponding graphical representation. During both phases a type-checker is running on the background to ensure that both the graphical representation and the STEP file are syntactically correct. This project has been motivated by the Sensorium project at Boston University. In this technical report we present the basic features of the software, the process that has been followed during the design and implementation. Finally, we describe the approach used to test and validate our software.

Coherent wavelength division multiplexing: a novel transmission format for high spectral density optical communication networks

In this thesis a novel transmission format, named Coherent Wavelength Division Multiplexing (CoWDM) for use in high information spectral density optical communication networks is proposed and studied. In chapter I a historical view of fibre optic communication systems as well as an overview of state of the art technology is presented to provide an introduction to the subject area. We see that, in general the aim of modern optical communication system designers is to provide high bandwidth services while reducing the overall cost per transmitted bit of information. In the remainder of the thesis a range of investigations, both of a theoretical and experimental nature are carried out using the CoWDM transmission format. These investigations are designed to consider features of CoWDM such as its dispersion tolerance, compatibility with forward error correction and suitability for use in currently installed long haul networks amongst others. A high bit rate optical test bed constructed at the Tyndall National Institute facilitated most of the experimental work outlined in this thesis and a collaboration with France Telecom enabled long haul transmission experiments using the CoWDM format to be carried out. An amount of research was also carried out on ancillary topics such as optical comb generation, forward error correction and phase stabilisation techniques. The aim of these investigations is to verify the suitability of CoWDM as a cost effective solution for use in both current and future high bit rate optical communication networks

Giant step bunching from self-organized coalescence of SrRuO3 islands

Step bunching develops in the epitaxy of SrRuO3 on vicinal SrTiO3(001) substrates. We have investigated the formation mechanisms and we show here that step bunching forms by lateral coalescence of wedgelike three-dimensional islands that are nucleated at substrate steps. After coalescence, wedgelike islands become wider and straighter with growth, forming a self-organized network of parallel step bunches with altitudes exceeding 30 unit cells, separated by atomically flat terraces. The formation mechanism of step bunching in SrRuO3, from nucleated islands, radically differs from one-dimensional models used to describe bunching in semiconducting materials. These results illustrate that growth phenomena of complex oxides can be dramatically different to those in semiconducting or metallic systems.

Una eina innovadora per a la informació i la divulgació geogràfica: l’Atles comarcal de Catalunya en format digital

Due to the edition of the new Atles comarcal de Catalunya by the Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya in digital format, we look at the structure of their contents and the dynamics of its use. Likewise, it is detailed which methodology was utilized to perform it. Finally, some reflections on the innovations that this new product entails in textual and cartographic areas are proposed, especially related to the current socioeconomic context and new employed technologies

Comparing the physiological cost of step-powered video gaming, sedentary video gaming and self paced ambulatory activity in university students

Objectives: Methods for converting inactive video gaming to active video gaming have gained popularity in recent years. This study compared the physiological cost of a new peripheral device that used steps to power video gaming in an interactive manner against sedentary video gaming and self-paced ambulatory activity of university students (aged 19-29 years).
Methods: Nineteen adults (9 male, 10 female) performed six 10-minute activities, namely self-paced leisurely walking, self-paced brisk walking, self-paced jogging, two forms of sedentary video gaming, and step-powered video gaming. Activities were performed in a random order. Physiological cost during the activities was measured using Actiheart.
Results: Energy expenditure during step-powered video gaming (388.8 kcal.h-1) was comparable to the energy expended during brisk walking (373.8 kcal.h-1), and elicited a higher energy cost than sedentary video gaming (124.1 kcal.h-1) but a lower energy cost than jogging (694.5 kcal.h-1).
Conclusion: Overall, step-powered video gaming could be used as an entertaining and appealing tool to increase physical activity, though it should not be used as a complete substitute for traditional exercise, such as jogging.

Antarctic dataset in NetCDF format

The dataset described in this document has been put together for the purposes of numerical ice sheet modelling of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS), containing data on the ice sheet configuration (e.g. ice surface and ice thickness) and boundary conditions, such as the surface air temperature and accumulation. It is now possible to download a community ice sheet model (e.g. Glimmer-CISM, Rutt et al., 2009 doi:10.1029/2008JF001015), but without adequate data it is difficult to utilise such models. More specifically, ice sheet models that are initialised and run forward from the present day ice sheet configuration, need input data to represent the present-day ice sheet configuration as closely as possible (unlike those spun-up from ice free conditions, which only require the bed/bathymetry). Whilst the BEDMAP dataset (Lythe et al., 2001) was a step forward when it was made, there are a number of inconsistencies within the dataset (see Section 3), and since its release, more data has become available. The dataset described here incorporates some major new datasets (e.g. AGASEA/BBAS ice thickness, Nitsche et al. (2006) bathymetry doi:10.1029/2007GC001694), but by no means incorporates all the new data available. This considerable task is left for a 'BEDMAP2', (an updated version of BEDMAP), however, the processing carried out in this document illustrates the requirements of a dataset for the purpose of high resolution ice sheet modelling, and bridges the gap until a BEDMAP2 is published. It is envisaged, however, that updated versions of the data set will be made available periodically when new regional data sets become available and can be readily incorporated.

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).