<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>A Semantic Model for Integrated Content Management, Localisation and Language Technology Processing</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Dominic Jones</string-name>
          <email>Dominic.Jones@scss.tcd.ie</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Alexander O'Connor</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Yalemisew M. Abgaz</string-name>
          <email>Yabgaz@computing.dcu.ie</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David Lewis</string-name>
          <email>Dave.Lewis@scss.tcd.ie</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IE">Ireland</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>38</fpage>
      <lpage>49</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Providers of products and services are faced with the dual challenge of supporting the languages and individual needs of the global customer while also accommodating the increasing relevance of user-generated content. As a result, the content and localisation industries must now evolve rapidly from manually processing predicable content which arrives in large jobs to the highly automated processing of streams of fast moving, heterogeneous and unpredictable content. This requires a new generation of digital content management technologies that combine the agile flow of content from developers to localisers and consumers with the data-driven language technologies needed to handle the volume of content required to feed the demands of global markets. Data-driven technologies such as statistical machine translation, cross-lingual information retrieval, sentiment analysis and automatic speech recognition, all rely on high quality training content, which in turn must be continually harvested based on the human quality judgments made across the end-to-end content processing flow. This paper presents the motivation, approach and initial semantic models of a collection of research demonstrators where they represent a part of, or a step towards, documenting in a semantic model the multi-lingual semantic web.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Multilingual Web</kwd>
        <kwd>Content Management</kwd>
        <kwd>Localisation</kwd>
        <kwd>Language Technology and Interoperability</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>To engage successfully with global markets, enterprises increasingly need to
manage fast moving streams of multi-lingual content from both within the enterprise
and from the wider user communities with which they wish to engage. For example,
modern software markets are increasingly dominated by larger numbers of
finegrained applications, e.g. smartphone and social network ‘apps’ or
Software-as-aService (SaaS) offerings, that feature high frequency/ “perpetual beta” release cycles.
For these products, technical documentation increasingly adopts the form of FAQs,
blogs and wikis that grow with significant input from users and customer support staff
as features and problems are discovered and solutions documented. Even when
technical manuals are provided (and localised into different target markets), users
increasingly find more direct solutions to problems on user-generated question &amp;
answer sites, which may then themselves, merit localisation based on demand.</p>
      <p>Managing this multilingual content stream requires seamless integration of content
management systems, the localisation chain and data-driven natural language
technologies. Cost, timeliness and quality trade-offs need to be actively managed for
different content flows with a far greater level of flexibility and automation than that
that has been achieved previously to cover the range of multilingual content
generation and consumption paths, e.g. from online documentation, to Q-A fora and
micro-blog and RSS feeds.</p>
      <p>The Centre for Next Generation Localisation (CNGL) specifically consists of over
100 researchers from academia and industry who conduct research into the integration
of natural language technologies, localisation and digital content management
required in addressing these challenges. Researchers work collaboratively in CNGL to
produce a range of technical demonstrators that integrate multiple forms of
multilingual content. A key challenge associated with such large-scale research
systems integration is the need for researchers to collaborate and for software to
interoperate. However, the components are derived from a number of different
research and industrial communities, where either meta-data was not formally defined
or was specified from a fragmented set of standards or industry specifications. CNGL
therefore established a meta-data group (MDG) to concentrate and integrate the
metadata expertise from these different research areas, including statistical machine
translation and text analytics research, adaptive content and personalisation research
and localisation workflow and interoperability. To address the universal trend of
content to be web based and to offer a well-supported, community-neutral approach to
semantic modelling, the standardised languages of the W3C Semantic Web initiative
were used. This allowed multiple existing meta-data standards and component
metadata requirements to be incorporated into a single model thereby demonstrating the
interrelation and utility of such interlinked meta-data. This paper presents the initial
process for the development of such semantic models for interoperation within a large
software research project, such as the CNGL. Future research will see these models
are deployed and evaluated in multiple industrial settings to establish their broader
applicability in the field of localisation and digital content management. This paper
only provides a discussion around forming these initial models.
2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Approach</title>
      <p>There is an increasing focus on the interoperability of Content Management
Systems (CMS), the tools in the localisation chains and the emerging array of
language technologies offered as services. In the localisation industry there are many
different platforms, favoured by various Language Service Providers (LSPs) for
translation projects. Some are in-house deployments, some open-source (such as
GlobalSight) and some purchasable from third parties (such as SDL WorldServer).
However each platform comes with its own nuances, meta-data specification and
translation workflow management tools. For example within Digital Content
Management multiple approaches to storing meta-data apply ranging from storing
simple XML content as mark-up (from both authors and consumers) through to
complete Ontological models. In Machine Translation meta-data appears in the many
forms from terminological mark-up, workflow management meta-data and
Translation Memory (TM) that allows previous translations to be recycled in the
Machine Translation (MT) process. As has been shown complex meta-data standards
occur in many places across both the multi-lingual semantic web and localisation
industry.</p>
      <p>CNGL develops a large number of distinct “demo” systems integrating different
aspects of content management, localization and language technology integration.</p>
      <p>Figure 1 summarises how the current range of integrated systems in these
categories map onto the NGL Process Map. Semantic models, consisting of content
and service models are developed by synthesizing a seed model from an analysis
conducted across the range of these integrated systems. This model has then been
mapped back onto revisions of the integrated system to assess the degree to which the
model can accommodate the natural evolution of these systems as they evolve in
response to specific industry requirements and technological advances.
The availability of such a large, motivated cohort of collaborating researchers
presented a range of distinct views and expertise and allowed us to gather input for
and define common models of both the content and services offered across
Localisation, Content-management and Integrated Language Technologies. The
demonstration systems used address use scenarios in the areas of: Bulk Localisation
Workflow (BLW); Personalised Multilingual Customer Care (PMCC) and
Personalised Multilingual Social Networking (PMSN). To develop a shared
understanding of this modelling, demonstration systems workflows and the
components implementing specific activities are overlaid onto a Next Generation
Localisation (NGL) Process Map (Figure 1) that identified different stakeholders and
abstractions of the major process areas involved in content generation, its preparation
for manual and machine processing, the translation, such as translation and
personalisation, resulting from this processing and the delivery and consumption
(including rating and feedback) by consumers. Semantic models, the content being
processed and the services offered by the components doing these processing were
then developed by synthesizing a seed model from an analysis conducted across the
range of integrated systems and making continual iterations to this model.</p>
      <p>However, the breadth of input also put into sharp focus the degree of change these
models would be subject to, resulting from continual advances in the research
components used, we therefore applied Ontological Evolution techniques to create a
common evolving model that is representative of this set of changing viewpoints and
that is extensible for use by others in the future. This semantic model has therefore
been mapped back onto revisions of the integrated demonstration systems to assess
the degree to which the model can accommodate the natural evolution of these
systems (which have undergone four coordinated iterations over the last three years)
as they change in response to specific industry requirements and technological
advances.
3.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Challenges for Multilingual Web Meta-data Interoperability</title>
      <p>
        The purpose of building common semantic models is driven by the fact that
standardisation efforts in support of content management and localisation processes
and tool interoperability are somewhat fragmented between the Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Open Standards for
Container/Content Allowing Re-use (OSCAR) operated by the (now defunct)
Localisation Industry Standards Association (LISA) and the W3C. Most current
standards are in the form of XML document schema designed to support hand-over of
specific content and meta-data between different tools through import and export
functions using these different file formats. This occurs primarily when a translation
job is handed off from a content developer to an Language Service Provider (LSP) via
their respective Translation Management System (TMS) tools and onwards to an
individual translator’s CAT tool, possibly via a translation agency [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        For example LISA’s Translation Memory Exchange (TMX) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] standard is one of
the most widely used and supports the hand-off of the key linguistic assets currently
used in the translation process. This is typically from Translation Memory (TM)
repositories to Computer Aided Translation (CAT) tools, where content is leveraged,
and back again as quality-check translations that are added to the TM. Similarly,
LISA defined Term Base Exchange (TBX) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ] which is an XML format for
exchanging terminological information, aligned with description categories defined
by ISO/TC37 on Terminology and other language and content resources.
      </p>
      <p>
        The XML Localization Interchange File Format (XLIFF) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] from OASIS offers a
standard way of passing a live translation job (combined in an envelope of content
and meta-data between different tools) handling: the extraction and segmentation of
translatable text; its translation by human, TM leverage or Machine Translation (MT);
translation review and re-integration of target language content with formatting
skeleton files for publication. The XLIFF schema suffers however from a high level
of optional elements as well as common use of user-generated extensions resulting in
difficulties in its use for blind interchange of localisation meta-data between tools [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
In addition to this XLIFF does not support the passage of process meta-data from
either content authoring processes (including the application of controlled language)
to the localisation process, nor from the localisation process to the TM and
terminology maintenance processes, so that meta-data potentially useful for future
TM leverage or TM and terminology use in Statistical Machine Translation (SMT)
training is lost.
      </p>
      <p>
        Another OASIS TC, on an Open Architecture for XML Authoring and
Localization (OAXAL) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ], has articulated a reference model that proposes using the
XML Text Memory schema defined by LISA (xml:tm) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ] to provide better
end-toend management of localised content. By managing the segmentation of source
content within the content management system, it provides both author memory to
assist changes in the source termed ‘translation memory’, and maintains the link
between source and target content such that changes to either can be managed and
also used to more effectively build new TMs. However, only a high-level integration
framework has been outlined to date and considerable additional work toward
alignment with other standards would be required for a workable solution. In
summary the challenges faced in supporting integration of content processing across
the content management and localisation industries are seen as:
•
•
•
•
      </p>
      <p>The tendency towards tool vendor lock-in, in terms of both Translation
Management Systems and exchange formation, and the associated lack of a
strong independent tool vendor market supported by widely adopted common
standards.</p>
      <p>The need to migrate localisation processes to integrate with increasingly web
based, multi-media and multi-modal content that can be personalised to
individual user and community needs.</p>
      <p>The need to apply localisation and personalisation processes to user generated
content and live social media while also actively leveraging the wisdom of the
crowd in accelerating those processes. More and more content is originating
from rapidly changing sources of content, involving the user in the translation
and post-editing of such content is beneficial to the user (being provided
access to content in their native tongue) and to the producer in terms of
reduced costs associated with translation. Where reduced costs, increased
speed, free marketing and delivering of quality assurance from the users
themselves form a new approach for companies to translate content.</p>
      <p>The lack of interoperability standards that span the Next Generation
Localisation (NGL) problem space and the lack of maturity of many of the
standards that are presented in various sub-domains.</p>
      <p>
        In order to begin to address these challenges integration in CNGL is based around
the adoption of Service Oriented Architectures (SOA). However, the wide and diverse
scope of CNGL requires strong common models so that meta-data can be easily
shared and services integrated without expensive mismatches in assumptions about
data and state and with clear processing expectations for the use of services.
Although localisation tool vendors are already attempting to support interoperability
through exposing web service APIs to the functionality they offer, these interfaces are
still largely proprietary, though there have been attempts to use XLIFF and TMX file
format as input/output message payloads. Service-oriented integration of language
technology has received some attention also by the research community, including:
the Japanese-funded LanguageGrid project that provided a platform for the
integration of arbitrary compositions in language resources [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], the CNGL which is
applying service oriented techniques to integrating language and digital content
management technologies with localisation workflows [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] and more recently the
Panacea FP7 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ] project which is investigating service compositions for language
resource processing pipelines.
      </p>
      <p>However the document-centric nature of existing localisation standards means that
their use in web service interfaces for localisation has been ad hoc and lacked any
shared conceptual or common conformance framework needed to support seamless
integration. In contrast, our semantic model forms a shared conceptual view of
services and content that has been derived and validated through a set of software
integrations. By providing a core common data type model with a well defined
conceptual basis for service, developers can define their interfaces more precisely as
contracts, with an easily reached shared understanding of precondition states and
processing expectation involved in invoking a given service. At the same time,
however, we do not aim to supplant existing interoperability standards where they
exist, nor do we intend to be a source of new interoperability standards. Instead we
aim to provide a minimal common model for data types that can be exchanged via
NGL services, while leaving it to individual service developers to use this type set to
define their service interfaces in their particular exchange format.
4.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Semantic Model</title>
      <p>
        As the common focus of integration was the processing of digital content, a
content-based semantic model was developed that incorporated a content processing
service model Figure 2 and a processed (i.e. managed) content data model Figure 3.
Both of these models have been developed using the Resource Description
Framework (RDF) [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ] and ontological principles from the Semantic Web to provide:
•
•
•
•
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>Flexibility in defining types. Extensibility through class specialisation. Operational persistence with explicit meta-data in the form of triple stores. Future support for open linked data approaches to content processing.</title>
        <p>
          This approach has provided a more flexible and extensible mechanism for defining
data types that can be exchanged between what we expect to be a large and dynamic
set of NGL services. In addition the semantic models also help to simplify the design
and refinement of content processing workflows in the CNGL research space by
interlinking concepts from existing models and existing standards including Content
management including DocBook [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ], DITA[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ], HTML, XML and Localisation
standards including: XLIFF [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ], TMX [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ], TBX [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
          ], LCX [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
          ], OAXAL [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
          ] and
xml:tm [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
          ]. The problem with such standards is that they often are deployed or
utilised in separate deployments or installations crossing over one another without a
common theme to their use where different platforms utilise different standards
making their interoperation hard to achieve. In the CNGL the aim is to make the
semantic model open, since to reduce industry interoperability costs, a common
model must be widely adopted by other system integrators and tool vendors and this
model must grow and evolve to adapt as new opportunities are exposed by third party
usage and their resulting feedback. We aim to improve the quality of the semantic
model by treating CNGL’s broad range of demos as a unique Interoperability
Laboratory providing, revising and reviewing semantic models sourced from a seed
model and synthesised from an analysis of early iterations of integrated systems.
Future research will see this model deployed in an industrial setting where the users
of the localisation standards presented can evaluate how well such a common model
applies in their particular workflow.
        </p>
        <p>The seed Semantic Model is broken down into two core parts, these are: Service:
High level classifications of the different services covered based on their content
processing features and Content: The core processed content model that we use to
record the content transformations of various types (including use of content as MT
training data) delivered by either activities from the business model or services. These
models provide an open mechanism for defining common meta-data from existing
software development, modelling tools and persistent data-stores. It therefore offers a
practical mechanism for defining a minimal core set of data types that can then be
composed or extended as new services are defined and new application requirements
arise. A benefit of such an approach towards semantic modelling is that it supports the
development of content processing management logs, which due to the emerging
nature of the services and applications involved, must be more exploratory in nature,
while operational, configuration and tuning requirements are established for
datadriven NLP technologies.</p>
        <p>During the process of model evolution a parent-child relationship is formed
between classes of content, so for example a sub-class of “GenerateContent” is
“AuthorText” following a more specific or less specific formation of relationships.
Properties are assigned to classes as data-type relationships for example “AuthorText”
may have a property “WordCount = int” where users are free in their adaptation of the
models to add as many sub-classes, super-classes or class structure changes as they
wish. In the Content Model users are able to add as many properties as they wish. All
of the changes to all of the models are integrated in one single collaborative session
where the meta-data group debates, integrates and records the changes made to the
initial seed models. The versions presented in this paper are the initial seed models of
both content and services with version 1 soon to be released.</p>
        <sec id="sec-4-1-1">
          <title>4.1. Service Model</title>
          <p>The Service Semantic model, shown in Figure 2, is based around the assumption
that all services or process, create or consume content in some form or another. As
RDF allows multiple inheritances defining new class types, the schema is defined to
allow integration of fundamental aspects of content processing services to define a
wide range of services. The core upper level service types include:
•
•
•
•
•</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>GenerateContent: the creation of content by human users.</title>
        <p>TransformContent: the transformation of content from one human
understandable form to another, including translation, text to speech and
content personalised or adaption for delivery to a particular user.
AnnotateContent: where additional meta-data is associated with content.
ProcessGroupContent: where operations on sets of content are represented.
CreateService: allowing the creation of a service to result from a processing
chain of other services, therefore allowing the configuration and training of an
SMT engine or other data-driven components, or adaptive composition of
services to be captured.</p>
        <sec id="sec-4-2-1">
          <title>4.2. Content Model</title>
          <p>Similar to the Service Model, the Content Model, shown in Figure 3, aims to
provide an extensible fine-grained schema of types from which the input and output
of services that can be modelled. The core type in the content model is
ManagedContent, which indicates that we are only interested in content that is subject
to some form of management or monitoring. The following key content processing
content types are then identified:
• GeneratedContent: content produced by a person.
• AnalysedContent: content that has been analysed prior to making some
decisions on further processing, such as user adaption.
• PreparedContent: content that has been altered for further processing.
• LocalisedContent: content that has been subject to the localisation processes.</p>
          <p>Other seed subclasses have been identified to differentiate content that has been
personalised, published or presented to a user or been discovered via information
retrieval. Further orthogonal subclasses differentiate: the manual and automatic
processing of content, content that is managed as an asset, e.g. a linguistic resource, as
well as utility types indicating the content is grouped, time-stamped and serialised as
a file, has had its elements counted or some intellectual property right asserted over it.
In this seed structure it is important to note that “PreparedForLocalisation” and
“PreparedForAdapation” are different in the following way: Localised content is
content which is translated and personalised for delivery to a user, Adapted content is
only content which is personalised and may not specifically have been translated
before delivery to a user. Also important to note is that in terms of both the content
and service models these change as the crowd of users adapt them to include the
services and content types offered through their research. For example the content
model does not include any user generated or live social media content types,
however once deployed and adapted by users using a crowd-sourced approach such
additions are deemed more likely.</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Ontology and Semantic Evolution</title>
      <p>
        The models presented here have been captured as an ontology using RDF. An
Ontology or semantic model is a specification of a shared conceptualization of a
domain [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] and serve to capture domain knowledge in a generic way providing a
commonly agreed understanding and conceptualization of knowledge elements within
that domain. They provide common ground for understanding, conceptualization,
representation and interpretation of domain concepts uniformly across different
systems, languages and formats. However, as discussed above, the dynamics of the
given ontology often demand changes to application requirements that may be
fulfilled only by changing/evolving these principal ontologies [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In [9 and 10] ontology evolution is defined as: “The timely adaptation of an
ontology to changed patterns of usage in the ontology-based application, as well as
the consistent management and propagation of these changes to dependent elements.”
Ontology evolution takes place when an ontology management system facilitates the
modification of an ontology by applying the proposed changes to the model and by
ensuring its subsequent consistency. The need for ontology evolution is directly
related to the changes that occur in the domain area or in the business environment
and reasons for change include conceptualization, representation or specification of
the domain. State-of-the-art ontology evolution process has six defined phases
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref8 ref9">8,9,10</xref>
        ]. The first phase, “change capture”, focuses on investigation and capturing
changes to the domain such as new concepts, out-dated concepts or updated concepts.
The second phase is “change representation”. Captured changes are represented using
atomic or composite change operations. The “semantics of change” phase deals with
the effects of the changes that have been requested, checking the effects of the
changes if implemented in the ontology [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. The main task of the next phase,
“change propagation”, is to confirm that dependent ontologies and tools are still
functioning properly and that no inconsistencies are introduced by changes to the
ontology. The “change implementation” phase focuses on implementing changes to
the ontology and keeping a record of these changes for undo or redo purposes. Finally
the change validation phase validates the change and makes it publicly available after
resolving inconsistencies if there are any.
      </p>
      <p>In a collaborative environment such as CNGL, achieving a common semantic
model requires a continuous evolution of models. Users expect the model to support
their changing requirements and thus leave the model in a continuous evolution.
Researchers applying their technical demonstrators to the current model of services
and content adapt the models presented in this paper and these changes are
incorporated into the seed models producing iterative versions of common, CNGL
wide, agreed semantic models, the first full versions soon to be published.
The approach taken, shown in Figure 4, to populating the semantic models, from the
collection of demonstrator systems, across the CNGL, involved producing a seed
semantic model applying the model to each individual demo team. Incorporating
feedback from the collection of demo teams into the seed models and extending the
semantic model through a process of continual evolution using a panel of domain
experts (the meta-data group) to enforce chances. In this approach, the need for
evolving the semantic model comes directly from the demonstrators.</p>
      <p>In the process of building the model, new services and content types emerged from
the demo teams. To incorporate these new services and content types, it is essential
for the models to evolve. This evolution occurs whilst incorporating feedback from
seventeen demo teams through an interview approach to data collection. A total of 43
change requests were made to the NGL service model (12 changes) and NGL content
model (31 changes). These requests included the addition of new content types which
were not captured in the seed model, specialization of existing concepts into two or
more types, generalization of categories to a single type and renaming of existing
types. There were no requests made for deletion of a given content or service type,
however in the process of implementing the above changes, for example renaming,
there were deletions introduced. In addition to working on the semantic models of
services and content properties were incorporated into the content model 44 of which
were identified. Some example of additions made in populating the models include:</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Requested content changes:</title>
        <p>• Add subclass (user feedback, managed content)
• Add subclass(user opinion, user feedback)
• Add subclass(user input, user feedback)
Requested service changes:
• Add subclass(rank TM, process group content)
• Add subclass(compare content, process Group content)
• Add subclass( classify audio, annotate content)
Requested properties:
• Add Property (source Language)
• Add Property (input Language)
• Add property (number Of Sentences)</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>Localization is moving more and more towards Content Management in terms of
the process pipeline apparent in taking a piece of content and turning it from source
language to destination. As the breadth and depth of the content being localized
increases there becomes a more apparent need to move towards a common semantic
model of the content being processed. This model needs to be both human
understandable but also normative, and for this reason it is argued that RDF is a
suitable candidate for building models of a rapidly expanding content set. This paper
has presented an approach currently being utilized for building common semantic
models of the services and content types from a number of demonstrator systems
focusing on localization, translation, natural language processing technologies and
digital content management. It is argued that such a collaborative approach to
gathering and defining semantic models of services and content provision is vital in
the future of the multi-lingual semantic web as it attempts to span the different related
research and industrial communities.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gough</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. “</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A troubled relationship: the compatibility of CAT tools”, TAUS technology article, downloaded from http://www.translationautomation.com/technology/a-troubledrelationship-the-compatibility-of-cat-tools</article-title>
          .
          <source>html 28 Dec</source>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mateos</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J “ A Web</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Services</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Approach to Software Localisation. Bringing Software Localisation Tools from the Desktop to the Cloud”</article-title>
          , Trinity College Dublin,
          <source>Computer Science Technical Report TCD-CS-2010-25 (MSc Dissertation)</source>
          ,
          <source>20 October</source>
          <year>2010</year>
          , https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.10/
          <string-name>
            <surname>TCD-CS-</surname>
          </string-name>
          2010
          <source>-25.pdf -01/11</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Inaba</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Murakami</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nadamoto</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ishida</surname>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          “
          <article-title>Multilingual Communication Support Using the Language Grid” Intercultural Collaboration</article-title>
          ,
          <source>LNCS 4568</source>
          , Springer, Aug 2007
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>David</given-names>
            <surname>Lewis</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Stephen</given-names>
            <surname>Curran</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Dominic Jones, John Moran, Kevin
          <string-name>
            <surname>Feeney</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>An Open Service Framework for Next Generation Localisation</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>Web Services and Processing Pipelines in HLT: Tool Evaluation, LR Production and Validation</article-title>
          , Malta, May
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Toral</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Towards Using Web-Crawled Data for Domain Adaptation in Statistical Machine Translation</article-title>
          .
          <source>"</source>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
            <surname>Lassila</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. R.</given-names>
            <surname>Swick</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>"Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax,"</article-title>
          <source>World Wide Web Consortium</source>
          , http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gruber</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.R.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A translation approach to portable ontology specifications</article-title>
          .
          <source>Knowledge. Acquisition</source>
          .
          <volume>5</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ) (
          <year>1993</year>
          )
          <fpage>199</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>220</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Stojanovic</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Studer</surname>
          </string-name>
          , R.:
          <article-title>Ontology evolution as reconfiguration design problem solving</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge capture</source>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zablith</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Dynamic ontology evolution</article-title>
          .
          <source>International</source>
          Semantic Web
          <string-name>
            <surname>Conference (ISWC) Doctoral</surname>
            <given-names>Consortium</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Karlsruhe, Germany (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stojanovic</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maedche</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Motik</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stojanovic</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>User-driven ontology evolution management</article-title>
          .
          <source>Lecture Notes in Computer Science</source>
          .
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>4</issue>
          ) (
          <year>2002</year>
          )
          <fpage>285</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>300</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Abgaz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Javed</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pahl</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Empirical analysis of impacts of instance-driven changes in ontologies</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM</source>
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>12. DockBook, http://www.docbook.org/</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <article-title>Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA</article-title>
          ) http://dita.xml.org/ Accessed - 09/
          <fpage>11</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>XML</given-names>
            <surname>Localisation</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Interchange File Format (XLIFF</article-title>
          ) http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/xliff/ Accessed - 09/
          <fpage>11</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <article-title>Translation Memory eXchange (TMX</article-title>
          ) http://www.lisa.org/fileadminstandards/tmx1.4/tmx.htm Accessed -
          <volume>09</volume>
          /
          <fpage>11</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <article-title>TermBase eXchange (TBX</article-title>
          ) http://www.ttt.org/tbx/ Accessed - 09/
          <fpage>11</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Localisation Content Exchange File</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Format (LCX) http</article-title>
          ://www.localisation.ie/xliff/resources/presentations/lcx-xliff.
          <source>pdf Accessed - 09/11</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <article-title>Open Architecture for XML Authoring and Localization (OAXAL</article-title>
          ) http://www.oasisopen.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=oaxal Accessed -
          <volume>09</volume>
          /
          <fpage>11</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <article-title>XML-based Text Memory (Xml:tm</article-title>
          ) http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/enewsletter/200608/fifth.htm Accessed -
          <volume>09</volume>
          /
          <fpage>11</fpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>