The Wall Street Journal article Walked Into a Lamppost? Hurt While Crocheting? Help Is on the Way describes the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision that is used to describe medical problems.

“Today, hospitals and doctors use a system of about 18,000 codes to describe medical services in bills they send to insurers. Apparently, that doesn’t allow for quite enough nuance. A new federally mandated version will expand the number to around 140,000—adding codes that describe precisely what bone was broken, or which artery is receiving a stent. It will also have a code for recording that a patient’s injury occurred in a chicken coop.”

We want to see the search engine companies develop and support a Microdata vocabulary for ICD-10. An ICDM-10 OWL DL ontology has already been done, but a Microdata version might add a lot of value. We could use it on our blogs and Facebook posts to catalog those annoying problems we encounter each day, like W59.22XD (Struck by turtle, initial encounter), or Y07.53 (Teacher or instructor, perpetrator of maltreat and neglect).

Humor aside, a description logic representation (e.g., in OWL) makes the coding system seem less ridiculous. Instead of appearing as a catalog of 140K ground tags, it would emphasize that it is a collection of a much smaller number of classes that can be combined in productive ways to produce them or used to create general descriptions (e.g., bitten by an animal).

The First Mid-Atlantic Student Colloquium on Speech, Language and Learning is a one-day event to be held at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore on Friday, 23 September 2011. Its goal is to bring together students taking computational approaches to speech, language, and learning, so that they can introduce their research to the local student community, give and receive feedback, and engage each other in collaborative discussion. Attendance is open to all and free but space is limited, so online registration is requested by September 16. The program runs from 10:00am to 5:00pm and will include oral presentations, poster sessions, and breakout sessions.

Pervasive, context-aware computing technologies can significantly enhance and improve the coming generation of devices and applications for consumer electronics as well as devices for work places, schools and hospitals. Context-aware cognitive support requires activity and context information to be captured, reasoned with and shared across devices — efficiently, securely, adhering to privacy policies, and with multidevice interoperability.

The AAAI-11 conference will host a two-day workshop on Activity Context Representation: Techniques and Languages focused on techniques and systems to allow mobile devices model and recognize the activities and context of people and groups and then exploit those models to provide better services. The workshop will be held on August 7th and 8th in San Francisco as part of AAAI-11, the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Submission of research papers and position statements are due by 22 April 2011.

The workshop intends to lay the groundwork for techniques to represent context within activity models using a synthesis of HCI/CSCW and AI approaches to reduce demands on people, such as the cognitive load inherent in activity/context switching, and enhancing human and device performance. It will explore activity and context modeling issues of capture, representation, standardization and interoperability for creating context-aware and activity-based assistive cognition tools with topics including, but not limited to the following:

• Activity modeling, representation, detection
• Context representation within activities
• Semantic activity reasoning, search
• Security and privacy
• Information integration from multiple sources, ontologies
• Context capture

There are three intended end results of the workshop: (1) Develop two-three key themes for research with specific opportunities for collaborative work. (2) Create a core research group forming an international academic and industrial consortium to significantly augment existing standards/drafts/proposals and create fresh initiatives to enable capture, transfer, and recall of activity context across multiple devices and platforms used by people individually and collectively. (3) Review and revise an initial draft of structure of an activity context exchange language (ACEL) including identification of use cases, domain-specific instantiations needed, and drafts of initial reasoning schemes and algorithms.

For more information, see the workshop call for papers.

The W3C has published a second working draft of EmotionML, or the emotion markup language, Here’s how it’s described.

As the web is becoming ubiquitous, interactive, and multimodal, technology needs to deal increasingly with human factors, including emotions. The present draft specification of Emotion Markup Language 1.0 aims to strike a balance between practical applicability and scientific well-foundedness. The language is conceived as a “plug-in” language suitable for use in three different areas: (1) manual annotation of data; (2) automatic recognition of emotion-related states from user behavior; and (3) generation of emotion-related system behavior.

Unfortunately EmotionML is not built on RDF. If it were, I would have marked up this post in RDFa using it!

The working draft identifies concrete examples where EmotionML might be useful including as a markup or representation for systems that do opinion mining, sentiment analysis, affect monitoring, and emotion recognition. A list of 39 individual use cases for EmotionML are given in an appendix.

EmotionML markup explicitly refers to one or more separate vocabularies used for representing emotion-related states. However, the group has defined some default vocabularies that can be used. An example is the Ekman “big six” basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprised). Another is the a set of appraisal terms defined by Ortony et al. (desirability, praiseworthiness, appealingness,, desirability-for-other, deservingness, liking, likelihood, effort, realization, strength-of-identification, expectation-of-deviation and familiarity)

Here’s an example from the working draft where a static image is annotated with several emotion categories with different intensities.

<emotionml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml"
           xmlns:meta="http://www.example.com/metadata"
           category-set="http://www.example.com/custom/
                hall-matsumoto-emotions.xml">
   <info>
      <meta:media-type>image</meta:media-type>
      <meta:media-id>disgust</meta:media-id>
      <meta:media-set>JACFEE-database</meta:media-set>
      <meta:doc>Example adapted from (Hall and Matsumoto 2004) 

http://www.davidmatsumoto.info/Articles/

          2004_hall_and_matsumoto.pdf
      </meta:doc>
   </info>

   <emotion>
       <category name="Disgust"/>
       <intensity value="0.82"/>
   </emotion>
   <emotion>
       <category name="Contempt"/>
       <intensity value="0.35"/>
   </emotion>
   <emotion>
       <category name="Anger"/>
       <intensity value="0.12"/>
   </emotion>
   <emotion>
       <category name="Surprise"/>
       <intensity value="0.53"/>
   </emotion>
</emotionml>

rdfs:seeAlso the short article by InqoQ on the EmotionML working draft.

Here’s a great resource if you want to come up to speed on ontologies and their importance today.

Professor Barry Smith of the University at Buffalo held a two-day course, An Introduction to Ontology: From Aristotle to the Universal Core, in 2009, to introduce ontologies and their applications to both philosophers and computer scientists. It consisted of of eight lectures for which slides and downloadable videos are available. Paul Alexander has also made the videos available in streaming form here if you want to view them without downloading.

The lectures are all either 60 or 90 minutes. Here are links to the streaming videos, thanks to Paul Alexander:

Editors: Yolanda Gil, University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute and Paul Groth, Free University of Amsterdam

The Web is a decentralized system full of information provided by diverse open sources of varying quality. For any given question there will be a multitude of answers offered, raising the need for assessing their relative value and for making decisions about what sources to trust. In order to make effective use of the Web, we routinely evaluate the information we get, the sources that provided it, and the processes that produced it. A trust layer was always present in the Web architecture, and Berners-Lee envisioned an “oh-yeah?” button in the browser to check the sources of an assertion. The Semantic Web raises these questions in the context of automated applications (e.g. reasoners, aggregators, or agents), whether trying to answer questions using the Linked Data cloud, use a mashup appropriately or determine trust on a social network. Therefore, provenance is an important aspect of the Web that becomes crucial in Semantic Web research.

This special issue on Using Provenance in the Semantic Web of the Journal of Web Semantics aims to collect representative research in handling provenance while using and reasoning about information and resources on the web. Provenance has been addressed in a variety of areas in computer science targeting specific contexts, such as databases and scientific workflows. Provenance is important in a variety of contexts, including open science, open government, and intellectual property and copyright. Provenance requirements must be understood for specific kinds of Web resources, such as documents, services, ontologies, workflows, and datasets.

We seek high quality submissions that describe recent projects, articulate research challenges, or put forward synergistic perspectives on provenance. We solicit submissions that advance the Semantic Web through exploiting provenance, addressing research issues including:

• representing provenance
• relating provenance to the underlying data and information
• managing provenance in a distributed web
• reasoning about trust based on provenance
• handling incomplete provenance
• taking advantage of the web’s structure for provenance

Submissions may focus on uses of provenance in the Semantic Web for:

• linked data
• social networking
• data integration
• inference from diverse sources
• trust and proof

Papers may also focus on application areas, highlighting the challenges and benefits of using provenance:

• provenance in open science
• provenance in open government
• provenance in copyright and intellectual property for documents
• provenance in web publishing

Important Dates

We will aim at an efficient publication cycle in order to guarantee prompt availability of the published results. We will review papers on a rolling basis as they are submitted and explicitly encourage submissions well before the submission deadline. Submit papers online at the journal’s Elsevier Web site.

• Submission deadline: 5 September 20 September 2010
• Author notification: 15 December 2010
• Revisions submitted: 1 February 2010
• Final decisions: 15 March 2011
• Publication: 1 April 2011

Submission guidelines

The Journal of Web Semantics solicits original scientific contributions of high quality. Following the overall mission of the journal, we emphasize the publication of papers that combine theories, methods and experiments from different subject areas in order to deliver innovative semantic methods and applications. The publication of large-scale experiments and their analysis is also encouraged to clearly illustrate scenarios and methods that introduce semantics into existing Web interfaces, contents and services. Submission of your manuscript is welcome provided that it, or any translation of it, has not been copyrighted or published and is not being submitted for publication elsewhere. Upon acceptance of an article, the author(s) will be asked to transfer copyright of the article to the publisher. This transfer will ensure the widest possible dissemination of information. Manuscripts should be prepared for publication in accordance with instructions given in the “Guide for Authors” (available from the publisher), details can be found online. The submission and review process will be carried out using Elsevier’s Web-based EES system. Final decisions of accepted papers will be approved by an editor in chief.

About the Journal of Web Semantics

The Journal of Web Semantics is published by Elsevier since 2003. It is an interdisciplinary journal based on research and applications of various subject areas that contribute to the development of a knowledge-intensive and intelligent service Web. These areas include: knowledge technologies, ontology, agents, databases and the semantic grid, obviously disciplines like information retrieval, language technology, human-computer interaction and knowledge discovery are of major relevance as well. All aspects of the Semantic Web development are covered. The current Editors-in-Chief are Tim Finin, Riichiro Mizoguchi and Steffen Staab. For all editors information, see our site.

The Journal of Web Semantics offers to its authors and readers:

• Professional support with publishing by Elsevier staff
• Indexed by Thomson-Reuters web of science
• Impact factor 3.41: the third highest out of 92 titles in Thomson-Reuters’ category “Computer Science, Information Systems

The Journal of Web Semantics has announced two new special issues. Heiner Stuckenschmidt and Jeff Heflin are editing a special issue on web-scale semantic information processing with a deadline of 1 July 2010 for submissions. Grigoris Antoniou, Mathieu d’Aquin and Jeff Z. Pan are editing a special issue on semantic web dynamics with submissions due 31 May 2010.

Wikipedia has an interesting RFC on approaches to achieve and maintain better coherence in its infobox templates. This is significant because Wikipedia is becoming the new CYC — a broad, practical KB filled with general purpose background knowledge. The RFC was kicked off by discussions on dbpedia template annotations. The RFC defines the problem as:

“Wikipedia uses hundreds of infobox templates for describing various entity types like NFL teams, schools in Canada, train stations etc. These infoboxes are separated and do not use a common vocabulary. Several different spellings of attributes are used for them, which all stand for the same meaning (e.g. birth_place, birthPlace, origin). This poses limitations to checking consistency within Wikipedia infoboxes, amongst different language editions, and it makes it hard for external tools to reuse the information in infoboxes.”

The goals mentioned in the RFC include (1) establishing the currently missing links between synonymous template attributes, (2) enabling authors to use template annotations to check for for factual inconsistencies (e.g., outdated population figures), and (3) providing consensus about which properties should be used in templates and what data they should contain.

OWL 2, the new version of the Web Ontology Language, officially became a W3C standard yesterday. From the W3C press release:

“Today W3C announces a new version of a standard for representing knowledge on the Web. OWL 2, part of W3C’s Semantic Web toolkit, allows people to capture their knowledge about a particular domain (say, energy or medicine) and then use tools to manage information, search through it, and learn more from it. Furthermore, as an open standard based on Web technology, it lowers the cost of merging knowledge from multiple domains.”

Wolfram|Alpha is an interesting query answering system developed by Wolfram Research that is a blend of a question answering system and a Semantic Web alternative. It tries to interpret and answer queries expressed as a sequence of words from a large collection of interlinked tables. Oh, and Mathematica is in thrown in for free. A free Web version was released last Spring.

The news today is that Wolfram|Alpha has released an API, as noted in their blog:

“The API allows your application to interact with Wolfram|Alpha much like you do on the web—you send a web request with the same query string you would type into Wolfram|Alpha’s query box and you get back the same computed results. It’s just that both are in a form your application can understand. There are plenty of ways to tweak and control the results, as well.”

The pricing plan runs from $60/month for 1000 (6 cents a query) queries to $220K for up to 10M queries/month (2.2 cents a query). programming language bindings are available for Java, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby and .NET.

Their original web interface remains free, but the TOS specifies that it “may be used only by a human being using a conventional web browser to manually enter queries one at a time.”