Task-based annotation and retrieval for image information management

Continuing advances in digital image capture and storage are resulting in a proliferation of imagery and associated problems of information overload in image domains. In this work we present a framework that supports image management using an interactive approach that captures and reuses task-based contextual information. Our framework models the relationship between images and domain tasks they support by monitoring the interactive manipulation and annotation of task-relevant imagery. During image analysis, interactions are captured and a task context is dynamically constructed so that human expertise, proficiency and knowledge can be leveraged to support other users in carrying out similar domain tasks using case-based reasoning techniques. In this article we present our framework for capturing task context and describe how we have implemented the framework as two image retrieval applications in the geo-spatial and medical domains. We present an evaluation that tests the efficiency of our algorithms for retrieving image context information and the effectiveness of the framework for carrying out goal-directed image tasks. © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Tapping the wealth of microbial data in high-throughput metabolic model reconstruction

Genome-scale metabolic models are valuable tools in the metabolic engineering process, based on the ability of these models to integrate diverse sources of data to produce global predictions of organism behavior. At the most basic level, these models require only a genome sequence to construct, and once built, they may be used to predict essential genes, culture conditions, pathway utilization, and the modifications required to enhance a desired organism behavior. In this chapter, we address two key challenges associated with the reconstruction of metabolic models: (a) leveraging existing knowledge of microbiology, biochemistry, and available omics data to produce the best possible model; and (b) applying available tools and data to automate the reconstruction process. We consider these challenges as we progress through the model reconstruction process, beginning with genome assembly, and culminating in the integration of constraints to capture the impact of transcriptional regulation. We divide the reconstruction process into ten distinct steps: (1) genome assembly from sequenced reads; (2) automated structural and functional annotation; (3) phylogenetic tree-based curation of genome annotations; (4) assembly and standardization of biochemistry database; (5) genome-scale metabolic reconstruction; (6) generation of core metabolic model; (7) generation of biomass composition reaction; (8) completion of draft metabolic model; (9) curation of metabolic model; and (10) integration of regulatory constraints. Each of these ten steps is documented in detail.

Transcript annotation in FANTOM3: Mouse gene catalog based on physical cDNAs

T he international FANTOM consortium aims to produce a comprehensive picture of the mammalian transcriptome, based upon an extensive cDNA collection and functional annotation of full-length enriched cDNAs. The previous dataset, FANTOM(2), comprised 60,770 full- length enriched cDNAs. Functional annotation revealed that this cDNA dataset contained only about half of the estimated number of mouse protein- coding genes, indicating that a number of cDNAs still remained to be collected and identified. To pursue the complete gene catalog that covers all predicted mouse genes, cloning and sequencing of full- length enriched cDNAs has been continued since FANTOM2. In FANTOM3, 42,031 newly isolated cDNAs were subjected to functional annotation, and the annotation of 4,347 FANTOM2 cDNAs was updated. To accomplish accurate functional annotation, we improved our automated annotation pipeline by introducing new coding sequence prediction programs and developed a Web- based annotation interface for simplifying the annotation procedures to reduce manual annotation errors. Automated coding sequence and function prediction was followed with manual curation and review by expert curators. A total of 102,801 full- length enriched mouse cDNAs were annotated. Out of 102,801 transcripts, 56,722 were functionally annotated as protein coding ( including partial or truncated transcripts), providing to our knowledge the greatest current coverage of the mouse proteome by full- length cDNAs. The total number of distinct non- protein- coding transcripts increased to 34,030. The FANTOM3 annotation system, consisting of automated computational prediction, manual curation, and. nal expert curation, facilitated the comprehensive characterization of the mouse transcriptome, and could be applied to the transcriptomes of other species.

Understanding Subsystems in Biology through Dimensionality Reduction, Graph Partitioning and Analytical Modeling

Biological systems exhibit rich and complex behavior through the orchestrated interplay of a large array of components. It is hypothesized that separable subsystems with some degree of functional autonomy exist; deciphering their independent behavior and functionality would greatly facilitate understanding the system as a whole. Discovering and analyzing such subsystems are hence pivotal problems in the quest to gain a quantitative understanding of complex biological systems. In this work, using approaches from machine learning, physics and graph theory, methods for the identification and analysis of such subsystems were developed. A novel methodology, based on a recent machine learning algorithm known as non-negative matrix factorization (NMF), was developed to discover such subsystems in a set of large-scale gene expression data. This set of subsystems was then used to predict functional relationships between genes, and this approach was shown to score significantly higher than conventional methods when benchmarking them against existing databases. Moreover, a mathematical treatment was developed to treat simple network subsystems based only on their topology (independent of particular parameter values). Application to a problem of experimental interest demonstrated the need for extentions to the conventional model to fully explain the experimental data. Finally, the notion of a subsystem was evaluated from a topological perspective. A number of different protein networks were examined to analyze their topological properties with respect to separability, seeking to find separable subsystems. These networks were shown to exhibit separability in a nonintuitive fashion, while the separable subsystems were of strong biological significance. It was demonstrated that the separability property found was not due to incomplete or biased data, but is likely to reflect biological structure.

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).

The Gene Ontology: enhancements for 2011.

The Gene Ontology (GO) (http://www.geneontology.org) is a community bioinformatics resource that represents gene product function through the use of structured, controlled vocabularies. The number of GO annotations of gene products has increased due to curation efforts among GO Consortium (GOC) groups, including focused literature-based annotation and ortholog-based functional inference. The GO ontologies continue to expand and improve as a result of targeted ontology development, including the introduction of computable logical definitions and development of new tools for the streamlined addition of terms to the ontology. The GOC continues to support its user community through the use of e-mail lists, social media and web-based resources.

Gestión integral en la Playa de Montaña Arena: Análisis y Diagnóstico preliminar

Máster Universitario en Gestión Costera

Services for Content Creation and Presentation in an Iconographical Digital Library

Content creation and presentation are key activities in a multimedia digital library (MDL). The proper design and intelligent implementation of these services provide a stable base for overall MDL functionality. This paper presents the framework and the implementation of these services in the latest version of the “Virtual Encyclopaedia of Bulgarian Iconography” multimedia digital library. For the semantic description of the iconographical objects a tree-based annotation template is implemented. It provides options for autocompletion, reuse of values, bilingual entering of data, automated media watermarking, resizing and conversing. The paper describes in detail the algorithm for automated appearance of dependent values for different characteristics of an iconographical object. An algorithm for avoiding duplicate image objects is also included. The service for automated appearance of new objects in a collection after their entering is included as an important part of the content presentation. The paper also presents the overall service-based architecture of the library, covering its main service panels, repositories and their relationships. The presented vision is based on a long-term observation of the users’ preferences, cognitive goals, and needs, aiming to find an optimal functionality solution for the end users.

Ecological status of mesophotic biogenic reefs off Chioggia

This study investigated the coralligenous reefs' benthic assemblages at 6 sites off Chioggia, in the northern Adriatic Sea, comparing 2 different methods of analysis of photographic samples: the grid method (overlapping a grid of 400 cells) and the random point method (random distribution of 100 points on the photo). For the first method, taxonomic recognition and the percentage coverage estimations were performed manually using photoQuad software. In the second, CoralNet semi-automated web-based annotation system was applied. This allows for assisted and supervised identification, the success rate of which gradually improves after initial software training. The results obtained with the two methods of analysing photographic samples are slightly different. The random points method gives lower species richness values and some differences in coverage estimations; all of this is reflected in the calculation of the biotic index. NAMBER values are significantly lower with the random points method and provide locally different classifications (3 out of 6 sites). However, the results obtained with the two methods are closely related to each other and depict a similar spatial trend. These results rise caution in applying different, albeit similar, methods in the analysis of benthic assemblages aimed to environmental quality assessment.

Iis--integrated Interactome System: A Web-based Platform For The Annotation, Analysis And Visualization Of Protein-metabolite-gene-drug Interactions By Integrating A Variety Of Data Sources And Tools.

High-throughput screening of physical, genetic and chemical-genetic interactions brings important perspectives in the Systems Biology field, as the analysis of these interactions provides new insights into protein/gene function, cellular metabolic variations and the validation of therapeutic targets and drug design. However, such analysis depends on a pipeline connecting different tools that can automatically integrate data from diverse sources and result in a more comprehensive dataset that can be properly interpreted. We describe here the Integrated Interactome System (IIS), an integrative platform with a web-based interface for the annotation, analysis and visualization of the interaction profiles of proteins/genes, metabolites and drugs of interest. IIS works in four connected modules: (i) Submission module, which receives raw data derived from Sanger sequencing (e.g. two-hybrid system); (ii) Search module, which enables the user to search for the processed reads to be assembled into contigs/singlets, or for lists of proteins/genes, metabolites and drugs of interest, and add them to the project; (iii) Annotation module, which assigns annotations from several databases for the contigs/singlets or lists of proteins/genes, generating tables with automatic annotation that can be manually curated; and (iv) Interactome module, which maps the contigs/singlets or the uploaded lists to entries in our integrated database, building networks that gather novel identified interactions, protein and metabolite expression/concentration levels, subcellular localization and computed topological metrics, GO biological processes and KEGG pathways enrichment. This module generates a XGMML file that can be imported into Cytoscape or be visualized directly on the web. We have developed IIS by the integration of diverse databases following the need of appropriate tools for a systematic analysis of physical, genetic and chemical-genetic interactions. IIS was validated with yeast two-hybrid, proteomics and metabolomics datasets, but it is also extendable to other datasets. IIS is freely available online at: http://www.lge.ibi.unicamp.br/lnbio/IIS/.

Analysis of the mouse transcriptome based on functional annotation of 60,770 full-length cDNAs

Only a small proportion of the mouse genome is transcribed into mature messenger RNA transcripts. There is an international collaborative effort to identify all full-length mRNA transcripts from the mouse, and to ensure that each is represented in a physical collection of clones. Here we report the manual annotation of 60,770 full-length mouse complementary DNA sequences. These are clustered into 33,409 'transcriptional units', contributing 90.1% of a newly established mouse transcriptome database. Of these transcriptional units, 4,258 are new protein-coding and 11,665 are new non-coding messages, indicating that non-coding RNA is a major component of the transcriptome. 41% of all transcriptional units showed evidence of alternative splicing. In protein-coding transcripts, 79% of splice variations altered the protein product. Whole-transcriptome analyses resulted in the identification of 2,431 sense-antisense pairs. The present work, completely supported by physical clones, provides the most comprehensive survey of a mammalian transcriptome so far, and is a valuable resource for functional genomics.

A web-based platform for biosignal visualization and annotation

With the advent of wearable sensing and mobile technologies, biosignals have seen an increasingly growing number of application areas, leading to the collection of large volumes of data. One of the difficulties in dealing with these data sets, and in the development of automated machine learning systems which use them as input, is the lack of reliable ground truth information. In this paper we present a new web-based platform for visualization, retrieval and annotation of biosignals by non-technical users, aimed at improving the process of ground truth collection for biomedical applications. Moreover, a novel extendable and scalable data representation model and persistency framework is presented. The results of the experimental evaluation with possible users has further confirmed the potential of the presented framework.

Gesture based interface for image annotation

Dissertação apresentada para obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Engenharia Informática pela Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia

CleanEx: a database of heterogeneous gene expression data based on a consistent gene nomenclature and linked to an improved annotation system

Résumé: L'automatisation du séquençage et de l'annotation des génomes, ainsi que l'application à large échelle de méthodes de mesure de l'expression génique, génèrent une quantité phénoménale de données pour des organismes modèles tels que l'homme ou la souris. Dans ce déluge de données, il devient très difficile d'obtenir des informations spécifiques à un organisme ou à un gène, et une telle recherche aboutit fréquemment à des réponses fragmentées, voir incomplètes. La création d'une base de données capable de gérer et d'intégrer aussi bien les données génomiques que les données transcriptomiques peut grandement améliorer la vitesse de recherche ainsi que la qualité des résultats obtenus, en permettant une comparaison directe de mesures d'expression des gènes provenant d'expériences réalisées grâce à des techniques différentes. L'objectif principal de ce projet, appelé CleanEx, est de fournir un accès direct aux données d'expression publiques par le biais de noms de gènes officiels, et de représenter des données d'expression produites selon des protocoles différents de manière à faciliter une analyse générale et une comparaison entre plusieurs jeux de données. Une mise à jour cohérente et régulière de la nomenclature des gènes est assurée en associant chaque expérience d'expression de gène à un identificateur permanent de la séquence-cible, donnant une description physique de la population d'ARN visée par l'expérience. Ces identificateurs sont ensuite associés à intervalles réguliers aux catalogues, en constante évolution, des gènes d'organismes modèles. Cette procédure automatique de traçage se fonde en partie sur des ressources externes d'information génomique, telles que UniGene et RefSeq. La partie centrale de CleanEx consiste en un index de gènes établi de manière hebdomadaire et qui contient les liens à toutes les données publiques d'expression déjà incorporées au système. En outre, la base de données des séquences-cible fournit un lien sur le gène correspondant ainsi qu'un contrôle de qualité de ce lien pour différents types de ressources expérimentales, telles que des clones ou des sondes Affymetrix. Le système de recherche en ligne de CleanEx offre un accès aux entrées individuelles ainsi qu'à des outils d'analyse croisée de jeux de donnnées. Ces outils se sont avérés très efficaces dans le cadre de la comparaison de l'expression de gènes, ainsi que, dans une certaine mesure, dans la détection d'une variation de cette expression liée au phénomène d'épissage alternatif. Les fichiers et les outils de CleanEx sont accessibles en ligne (http://www.cleanex.isb-sib.ch/). Abstract: The automatic genome sequencing and annotation, as well as the large-scale gene expression measurements methods, generate a massive amount of data for model organisms. Searching for genespecific or organism-specific information througout all the different databases has become a very difficult task, and often results in fragmented and unrelated answers. The generation of a database which will federate and integrate genomic and transcriptomic data together will greatly improve the search speed as well as the quality of the results by allowing a direct comparison of expression results obtained by different techniques. The main goal of this project, called the CleanEx database, is thus to provide access to public gene expression data via unique gene names and to represent heterogeneous expression data produced by different technologies in a way that facilitates joint analysis and crossdataset comparisons. A consistent and uptodate gene nomenclature is achieved by associating each single gene expression experiment with a permanent target identifier consisting of a physical description of the targeted RNA population or the hybridization reagent used. These targets are then mapped at regular intervals to the growing and evolving catalogues of genes from model organisms, such as human and mouse. The completely automatic mapping procedure relies partly on external genome information resources such as UniGene and RefSeq. The central part of CleanEx is a weekly built gene index containing crossreferences to all public expression data already incorporated into the system. In addition, the expression target database of CleanEx provides gene mapping and quality control information for various types of experimental resources, such as cDNA clones or Affymetrix probe sets. The Affymetrix mapping files are accessible as text files, for further use in external applications, and as individual entries, via the webbased interfaces . The CleanEx webbased query interfaces offer access to individual entries via text string searches or quantitative expression criteria, as well as crossdataset analysis tools, and crosschip gene comparison. These tools have proven to be very efficient in expression data comparison and even, to a certain extent, in detection of differentially expressed splice variants. The CleanEx flat files and tools are available online at: http://www.cleanex.isbsib. ch/.

A revision of Evaniscus (Hymenoptera, Evaniidae) using ontology-based semantic phenotype annotation

The Neotropical evaniid genus Evaniscus Szepligeti currently includes six species. Two new species are described, Evaniscus lansdownei Mullins, sp. n. from Colombia and Brazil and E. rafaeli Kawada, sp. n. from Brazil. Evaniscus sulcigenis Roman, syn. n., is synonymized under E. rufithorax Enderlein. An identification key to species of Evaniscus is provided. Thirty-five parsimony informative morphological characters are analyzed for six ingroup and four outgroup taxa. A topology resulting in a monophyletic Evaniscus is presented with E. tibialis and E. rafaeli as sister to the remaining Evaniscus species. The Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology and other relevant biomedical ontologies are employed to create semantic phenotype statements in Entity-Quality (EQ) format for species descriptions. This approach is an early effort to formalize species descriptions and to make descriptive data available to other domains.