Adding semantic annotations into (Geospatial) RESTful services

In this paper the authors present an approach for the semantic annotation of RESTful services in the geospatial domain. Their approach automates some stages of the annotation process, by using a combination of resources and services: a cross-domain knowledge base like DBpedia, two domain ontologies like GeoNames and the WGS84 vocabulary, and suggestion and synonym services. The authors’ approach has been successfully evaluated with a set of geospatial RESTful services obtained from ProgrammableWeb.com, where geospatial services account for a third of the total amount of services available in this registry.

LORESA : un système de recommandation d'objets d'apprentissage basé sur les annotations sémantiques

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

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).

A survey of semantic web services formalisms

The field of Semantic Web Services (SWS) has been recognized as one of the most promising areas of emergent research within the Semantic Web initiative, exhibiting an extensive commercial potential and attracting significant attention from both industry and the research community. Currently, there exist several different frameworks and languages for formally describing a Web Service: Web Ontology Language for Services (OWL-S), Web Service Modelling Ontology (WSMO) and Semantic Annotations for the Web Services Description Language (SAWSDL) are the most important approaches. To the inexperienced user, choosing the appropriate platform for a specific SWS application may prove to be challenging, given a lack of clear separation between the ideas promoted by the associated research communities. In this paper, we systematically compare OWL-S, WSMO and SAWSDL from various standpoints, namely, that of the service requester and provider as well as the broker-based view. The comparison is meant to help users to better understand the strengths and limitations of these different approaches to formalizing SWS, and to choose the most suitable solution for a given application. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A survey of semantic web services formalisms

The field of Semantic Web Services (SWS) has been recognized as one of the most promising areas of emergent research within the Semantic Web (SW) initiative, exhibiting an extensive commercial potential, and attracting significant attention from both industry and the research community. Currently, there exist several different frameworks and languages for formally describing a Web Service: OWL-S (Web Ontology Language for Services), WSMO (Web Service Modeling Ontology) and SAWSDL (Semantic Annotations for the Web Services Description Language) are the most important approaches. To the inexperienced user, choosing the appropriate paradigm for a specific SWS application may prove to be challenging, given a lack of clear separation between the ideas promoted by the associated research communities. In this paper, we systematically compare OWL-S, WSMO and SAWSDL from various standpoints, namely that of the service requester and provider as well as the broker based view. The comparison is meant to help users to better understand the strengths and limitations of these different approaches to formalising SWS, and to choose the most suitable solution for a given use case. © 2013 IEEE.

Enterprise reference lexicon building from business models

Nowadays, a significant increase on the demand for interoperable systems for exchanging data in business collaborative environments has been noticed. Consequently, cooperation agreements between each of the involved enterprises have been brought to light. However, due to the fact that even in a same community or domain, there is a big variety of knowledge representation not semantically coincident, which embodies the existence of interoperability problems in the enterprises information systems that need to be addressed. Moreover, in relation to this, most organizations face other problems about their information systems, as: 1) domain knowledge not being easily accessible by all the stakeholders (even intra-enterprise); 2) domain knowledge not being represented in a standard format; 3) and even if it is available in a standard format, it is not supported by semantic annotations or described using a common and understandable lexicon. This dissertation proposes an approach for the establishment of an enterprise reference lexicon from business models. It addresses the automation in the information models mapping for the reference lexicon construction. It aggregates a formal and conceptual representation of the business domain, with a clear definition of the used lexicon to facilitate an overall understanding by all the involved stakeholders, including non-IT personnel.

NewsAnalyzer : un analitzador de notícies etiquetades

En aquest treball es pretén abordar la problemàtica de confirmar o refutar si determinades fonts de notícies online mostren algun tipus de biaix que a priori un lector podria detectar per simple intuïció. Per simplificar les tasques d'anàlisi es treballa amb fonts de notícies que disposen d'APIs d'accés als seus articles i que, a més a més, proporcionen anotacions semàntiques (etiquetes) associades a cada notícia a mode de classificació d'aquestes. Per complir amb els objectius plantejats s'analitza i millora un mètode descrit en la bibliografia que permet dur a terme una anàlisi de les etiquetes per tal d'obtenir i aplicar un vocabulari comú a les diferents fonts (procediment de normalització). El programari resultant es presenta com una aplicació implementada en Java i MySQL que recol·lecta notícies anotades semànticament de diferents fonts de notícies online (els diaris The Guardian i The New York Times), les analitza i permet visualitzar els resultats en funció del vocabulari normalitzat per tal d'extreure conclusions sobre quins són els temes més tractats per cada font. Finalment, s'analitzen els resultats obtinguts, es discuteixen i s'extreuen una sèrie de conclusions sobre el mètode de normalització i classificació emprats i es proposen possibles millores per al futur de l'aplicació.

Interpreting Judgements using Knowledge Representation Methods and Computational Models of Argument

The goal of the present research is to define a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling, by using knowledge extracted from text, metadata, and rules, while maintaining a strong text-to-knowledge morphism between legal text and legal concepts, in order to fill the gap between legal document and its semantics. The framework is composed of four different models that make use of standard languages from the Semantic Web stack of technologies: a document metadata structure, modelling the main parts of a judgement, and creating a bridge between a text and its semantic annotations of legal concepts; a legal core ontology, modelling abstract legal concepts and institutions contained in a rule of law; a legal domain ontology, modelling the main legal concepts in a specific domain concerned by case-law; an argumentation system, modelling the structure of argumentation. The input to the framework includes metadata associated with judicial concepts, and an ontology library representing the structure of case-law. The research relies on the previous efforts of the community in the field of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain, in order to apply the theory to a set of real legal documents, stressing the OWL axioms definitions as much as possible in order to enable them to provide a semantically powerful representation of the legal document and a solid ground for an argumentation system using a defeasible subset of predicate logics. It appears that some new features of OWL2 unlock useful reasoning features for legal knowledge, especially if combined with defeasible rules and argumentation schemes. The main task is thus to formalize legal concepts and argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, with the following requirement: to check, validate and reuse the discourse of a judge - and the argumentation he produces - as expressed by the judicial text.

A novel framework of training hidden Markov support vector machines from lightly-annotated data

Natural language understanding (NLU) aims to map sentences to their semantic mean representations. Statistical approaches to NLU normally require fully-annotated training data where each sentence is paired with its word-level semantic annotations. In this paper, we propose a novel learning framework which trains the Hidden Markov Support Vector Machines (HM-SVMs) without the use of expensive fully-annotated data. In particular, our learning approach takes as input a training set of sentences labeled with abstract semantic annotations encoding underlying embedded structural relations and automatically induces derivation rules that map sentences to their semantic meaning representations. The proposed approach has been tested on the DARPA Communicator Data and achieved 93.18% in F-measure, which outperforms the previously proposed approaches of training the hidden vector state model or conditional random fields from unaligned data, with a relative error reduction rate of 43.3% and 10.6% being achieved.

Integration of semantically annotated data by the KnoFuss architecture

Most of the existing work on information integration in the Semantic Web concentrates on resolving schema-level problems. Specific issues of data-level integration (instance coreferencing, conflict resolution, handling uncertainty) are usually tackled by applying the same techniques as for ontology schema matching or by reusing the solutions produced in the database domain. However, data structured according to OWL ontologies has its specific features: e.g., the classes are organized into a hierarchy, the properties are inherited, data constraints differ from those defined by database schema. This paper describes how these features are exploited in our architecture KnoFuss, designed to support data-level integration of semantic annotations.

Semi-supervised learning of statistical models for natural language understanding

Natural language understanding is to specify a computational model that maps sentences to their semantic mean representation. In this paper, we propose a novel framework to train the statistical models without using expensive fully annotated data. In particular, the input of our framework is a set of sentences labeled with abstract semantic annotations. These annotations encode the underlying embedded semantic structural relations without explicit word/semantic tag alignment. The proposed framework can automatically induce derivation rules that map sentences to their semantic meaning representations. The learning framework is applied on two statistical models, the conditional random fields (CRFs) and the hidden Markov support vector machines (HM-SVMs). Our experimental results on the DARPA communicator data show that both CRFs and HM-SVMs outperform the baseline approach, previously proposed hidden vector state (HVS) model which is also trained on abstract semantic annotations. In addition, the proposed framework shows superior performance than two other baseline approaches, a hybrid framework combining HVS and HM-SVMs and discriminative training of HVS, with a relative error reduction rate of about 25% and 15% being achieved in F-measure.

Using social semantic knowledge to improve annotations in personal photo collections

Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa (IPL) e Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa (ISEL)apoio concedido pela bolsa SPRH/PROTEC/67580/2010, que apoiou parcialmente este trabalho

Dynamic Document Generation from Semantic Web Data

This talk will present an overview of the ongoing ERCIM project SMARTDOCS (SeMAntically-cReaTed DOCuments) which aims at automatically generating webpages from RDF data. It will particularly focus on the current issues and the investigated solutions in the different modules of the project, which are related to document planning, natural language generation and multimedia perspectives. The second part of the talk will be dedicated to the KODA annotation system, which is a knowledge-base-agnostic annotator designed to provide the RDF annotations required in the document generation process.

Semantic Annotation of RESTful and WFS OGC services

Actualmente, la Web provee un inmenso conjunto de servicios (WS-*, RESTful, OGC WFS), los cuales están normalmente expuestos a través de diferentes estándares que permiten localizar e invocar a estos servicios. Estos servicios están, generalmente, descritos utilizando información textual, sin una descripción formal, es decir, la descripción de los servicios es únicamente sintáctica. Para facilitar el uso y entendimiento de estos servicios, es necesario anotarlos de manera formal a través de la descripción de los metadatos. El objetivo de esta tesis es proponer un enfoque para la anotación semántica de servicios Web en el dominio geoespacial. Este enfoque permite automatizar algunas de las etapas del proceso de anotación, mediante el uso combinado de recursos ontológicos y servicios externos. Este proceso ha sido evaluado satisfactoriamente con un conjunto de servicios en el dominio geoespacial. La contribución principal de este trabajo es la automatización parcial del proceso de anotación semántica de los servicios RESTful y WFS, lo cual mejora el estado del arte en esta área. Una lista detallada de las contribuciones son: • Un modelo para representar servicios Web desde el punto de vista sintáctico y semántico, teniendo en cuenta el esquema y las instancias. • Un método para anotar servicios Web utilizando ontologías y recursos externos. • Un sistema que implementa el proceso de anotación propuesto. • Un banco de pruebas para la anotación semántica de servicios RESTful y OGC WFS. Abstract The Web contains an immense collection of Web services (WS-*, RESTful, OGC WFS), normally exposed through standards that tell us how to locate and invocate them. These services are usually described using mostly textual information and without proper formal descriptions, that is, existing service descriptions mostly stay on a syntactic level. If we want to make such services potentially easier to understand and use, we may want to annotate them formally, by means of descriptive metadata. The objective of this thesis is to propose an approach for the semantic annotation of services in the geospatial domain. Our approach automates some stages of the annotation process, by using a combination of thirdparty resources and services. It has been successfully evaluated with a set of geospatial services. The main contribution of this work is the partial automation of the process of RESTful and WFS semantic annotation services, what improves the current state of the art in this area. The more detailed list of contributions are: • A model for representing Web services. • A method for annotating Web services using ontological and external resources. • A system that implements the proposed annotation process. • A gold standard for the semantic annotation of RESTful and OGC WFS services, and algorithms for evaluating the annotations.

A hybrid generative/discriminative framework to train a semantic parser from an un-annotated corpus

We propose a hybrid generative/discriminative framework for semantic parsing which combines the hidden vector state (HVS) model and the hidden Markov support vector machines (HM-SVMs). The HVS model is an extension of the basic discrete Markov model in which context is encoded as a stack-oriented state vector. The HM-SVMs combine the advantages of the hidden Markov models and the support vector machines. By employing a modified K-means clustering method, a small set of most representative sentences can be automatically selected from an un-annotated corpus. These sentences together with their abstract annotations are used to train an HVS model which could be subsequently applied on the whole corpus to generate semantic parsing results. The most confident semantic parsing results are selected to generate a fully-annotated corpus which is used to train the HM-SVMs. The proposed framework has been tested on the DARPA Communicator Data. Experimental results show that an improvement over the baseline HVS parser has been observed using the hybrid framework. When compared with the HM-SVMs trained from the fully-annotated corpus, the hybrid framework gave a comparable performance with only a small set of lightly annotated sentences. © 2008. Licensed under the Creative Commons.