A telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) is a teleprinter, an electronic device for text communication over a telephone line, that is designed for use by persons with hearing or speech difficulties. Other names for the device include teletypewriter (TTY), textphone (common in Europe), and minicom (United Kingdom). The typical TDD is a device about the size of a typewriter or laptop computer with a QWERTY keyboard and small screen that uses an LED, LCD, or VFD screen to display typed text electronically. In addition, TDDs commonly have a small spool of paper on which text is also printed – old versions of the device had only a printer and no screen. The text is transmitted live, via a telephone line, to a compatible device, i.e. one that uses a similar communication protocol. Special telephone services have been developed to carry the TDD functionality even further. In certain countries, there are systems in place so that a deaf person can communicate with a hearing person on an ordinary voice phone using a human relay operator. There are also "carry-over" services, enabling people who can hear but cannot speak ("hearing carry-over", a.k.a. "HCO"), or people who cannot hear but are able to speak ("voice carry-over", a.k.a. "VCO") to use the telephone. The term TDD is sometimes discouraged because people who are deaf are increasingly using mainstream devices and technologies to carry out most of their communication. The devices described here were developed for use on the partially-analog Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). They do not work well on the new internet protocol (IP) networks. Thus as society increasingly moves toward IP based telecommunication, the telecommunication devices used by people who are deaf will not be TDDs. In the US and Canada, the devices are referred to as TTYs. Teletype Corporation, of Skokie, Illinois, made page printers for text, notably for news wire services and telegrams, but these used standards different from those for deaf communication, and although in quite widespread use, were technically incompatible. Furthermore, these were sometimes referred to by the "TTY" initialism, short for "Teletype". When computers had keyboard input mechanisms and page printer output, before CRT terminals came into use, Teletypes were the most widely used devices. They were called "console typewriters". (Telex used similar equipment, but was a separate international communication network.) == History == === APCOM acoustic coupler or MODEM device === The TDD concept was developed by James C. Marsters (1924–2009), a dentist and private airplane pilot who became deaf as an infant because of scarlet fever, and Robert Weitbrecht, a deaf physicist. In 1964, Marsters, Weitbrecht and Andrew Saks, an electrical engineer and grandson of the founder of the Saks Fifth Avenue department store chain, founded APCOM (Applied Communications Corp.), located in the San Francisco Bay area, to develop the acoustic coupler, or modem; their first product was named the PhoneType. APCOM collected old teleprinter machines (TTYs) from the Department of Defense and junkyards. Acoustic couplers were cabled to TTYs enabling the AT&T standard Model 500 telephone to couple, or fit, into the rubber cups on the coupler, thus allowing the device to transmit and receive a unique sequence of tones generated by the different corresponding TTY keys. The entire configuration of teleprinter machine, acoustic coupler, and telephone set became known as the TTY. Weitbrecht invented the acoustic coupler modem in 1964. The actual mechanism for TTY communications was accomplished electro-mechanically through frequency-shift keying (FSK) allowing only half-duplex communication, where only one person at a time can transmit. === Paul Taylor TTY device === During the late 1960s, Paul Taylor combined Western Union Teletype machines with modems to create teletypewriters, known as TTYs. He distributed these early, non-portable devices to the homes of many in the deaf community in St. Louis, Missouri. He worked with others to establish a local telephone wake-up service. In the early 1970s, these small successes in St. Louis evolved into the nation's first local telephone relay system for the deaf. === Micon Industries MCM device === In 1973, the Manual Communications Module (MCM), which was the world's first electronic portable TTY allowing two-way telecommunications, premiered at the California Association of the Deaf convention in Sacramento, California. The battery-powered MCM was invented and designed by a deaf news anchor and interpreter, Kit Patrick Corson, in conjunction with Michael Cannon and physicist Art Ogawa. It was manufactured by Michael Cannon's company, Micon Industries, and initially marketed by Kit Corson's company, Silent Communications. In order to be compatible with the existing TTY network, the MCM was designed around the five-bit Baudot code established by the older TTY machines instead of the ASCII code used by computers. The MCM was an instant success with the deaf community despite the drawback of a $599 cost. Within six months there were more MCMs in use by the deaf and hard of hearing than TTY machines. After a year Micon took over the marketing of the MCM and subsequently concluded a deal with Pacific Bell (who coined the term "TDD") to purchase MCMs and rent them to deaf telephone subscribers for $30 per month. After Micon formed an alliance with APCOM, Michael Cannon (Micon), Paul Conover (Micon), and Andrea Saks (APCOM) successfully petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), resulting in a tariff that paid for TTY devices to be distributed free of cost to deaf persons. Micon produced over 1,000 MCMs per month, resulting in approximately 50,000 MCMs being disseminated into the deaf community. Before he left Micon in 1980, Michael Cannon developed several computer compatible variations of the MCM and a portable, battery operated printing TTY, but they were never as popular as the original MCM. Newer model TTYs could communicate with selectable codes that allow communications at a higher bit rate on those models similarly equipped. However, the lack of true computer interface functionality spelled the demise of the original TTY and its clones. During the mid-1970s, other so-called portable telephone devices were being cloned by other companies, and this was the time period when the term "TDD" began being used largely by those outside the deaf community. === Text messaging and the Def-Tone System (DTS) === This relay system became known commonly as the Def-Tone System (DTS) because the tones representing letters of the alphabet were eventually carried in tones outside the range of human hearing. Today, this is commonly called multi-tap because you press a number 1, 2 or 3 times to get a corresponding letter. In 1994 Joseph Alan Poirier, a college student-worker, recommended using the system to send texts to forklifts to improve delivery of parts to the assembly line at GM Powertrain in Toledo, Ohio, and sending a text to pagers. He recommended taking pagers to alphanumeric displays incorporating the same system in discussions with the pager supplier for Outback Steakhouse and having relays put in the forklifts to ping alert messages to the pagers used in that system. He called it text messaging, coining the phrase. It is theorized that when Toyota forklift was allegedly hired by GM for this work, one of the subcontractors, Kyocera, utilized the work for the Toyota forklift company to create text messaging for cell phones. === Marsters Award === In 2009, AT&T received the James C. Marsters Promotion Award from TDI (formerly Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.) for its efforts to increase accessibility to communication for people with disabilities. The award holds some irony; it was AT&T that, in the 1960s, resisted efforts to implement TTY technology, claiming it would damage its communication equipment. In 1968, the Federal Communications Commission struck down AT&T's policy and forced it to offer TTY access to its network. == Protocols == There are many different standards for TDDs and textphones. === Original 5-bit Baudot code === The original standard used by TTYs is a variant of the Baudot code. The maximum speed of this protocol is 10 characters per second. This is a half-duplex protocol, which means that only one person at a time may transmit characters. If both try to transmit at the same time, the characters will be garbled on the other end. This protocol is commonly used in the United States. This is a variant of the Baudot code, implemented as 5-bits per character transmitted asynchronously using frequency-shift key-modulation at either 45.5 or 50 baud, 1 start bit, 5 data bits, and 1.5 stop bits. Details of the protocol implementation are available in TIA-825-A and also in T-REC V.18 Annex A "5-bit operational mode". === Turbo Code === The UltraTec company implements another protocol known as Enh
Galaksija BASIC
Galaksija BASIC was the BASIC interpreter of the Galaksija build-it-yourself home computer from Yugoslavia. While being partially based on code taken from TRS-80 Level 1 BASIC, which the creator believed to have been a Microsoft BASIC, the extensive modifications of Galaksija BASIC—such as to include rudimentary array support, video generation code (as the CPU itself did it in absence of dedicated video circuitry) and generally improvements to the programming language—is said to have left not much more than flow-control and floating point code remaining from the original. The core implementation of the interpreter was fully contained in the 4 KiB ROM "A" or "1". The computer's original mainboard had a reserved slot for an extension ROM "B" or "2" that added more commands and features such as a built-in Zilog Z80 assembler. == ROM "A"/"1" symbols and keywords == The core implementation, in ROM "A" or "1", contained 3 special symbols and 32 keywords: ! begins a comment (equivalent of standard BASIC REM command) # Equivalent of standard BASIC DATA statement & prefix for hex numbers ARR$(n) Allocates an array of strings, like DIM, but can allocate only array with name A$ BYTE serves as PEEK when used as a function (e.g. PRINT BYTE(11123)) and POKE when used as a command (e.g. BYTE 11123,123). CALL n Calls BASIC subroutine as GOSUB in most other BASICs (e.g. CALL 100+4X) CHR$(n) converts an ASCII numeric code into a corresponding character (string) DOT x, y draws (command) or inspects (function) a pixel at given coordinates (0<=x<=63, 0<=y<=47). DOT displays the clock or time controlled by content of Y$ variable. Not in standard ROM EDIT n causes specified program line to be edited ELSE standard part of IF-ELSE construct (Galaksija did not use THEN) EQ compare alphanumeric values X$ and Y$ FOR standard FOR loop GOTO standard GOTO command HOME equivalent of standard BASIC CLS command - clears the screen HOME n protects n characters from the top of the screen from being scrolled away IF standard part of IF-ELSE construct (Galaksija did not use THEN) INPUT user entry of variable INT(n) a function that returns the greatest integer value equal to or lesser than n KEY(n) test whether a particular keyboard key is pressed LIST lists the program. Optional numeric argument specifies the first line number to begin listing with. MEM returns memory consumption data (need details here) NEW clears the current BASIC program NEW n clears BASIC program and moves beginning of BASIC area NEXT standard terminator of FOR loop OLD loads a program from tape OLD n loads program to different address PTR Returns address of the variable PRINT Printing numeric or string expression. RETURN Return from BASIC subroutine RND function (takes no arguments) that returns a random number between 0 and 1. RUN runs (executes) BASIC program. Optional numeric argument specifies the line number to begin execution with. SAVE saves a program to tape. Optional two arguments specify memory range to be saved (need details here). STEP standard part of FOR loop STOP stops execution of BASIC program TAKE replacement for READ and RESTORE. If the parameter is variable name, acts as READ, if it is number, acts as RESTORE UNDOT x, y "undraws" (resets) at specified coordinates (see DOT) UNDOT Stops the clock, not part of ROM USR Calls machine code subroutine WORD Double byte PEEK and POKE == ROM "B"/"2" additional symbols and keywords == The extended BASIC features, in ROM "B" or "2", contained one extra reserved symbol and 22 extra keywords: % /LABEL ABS(x) ARCTG(x) COS(x) COSD(x) DEL DUMP EXP(x) INP(x) LDUMP LLIST LN(x) LPRINT OUT PI POW(x,y) REN SIN(x), SIND(x) SQR(x) TG(x) TGD(x)
Text Retrieval Conference
The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is an ongoing series of workshops focusing on a list of different information retrieval (IR) research areas, or tracks. It is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (part of the office of the Director of National Intelligence), and began in 1992 as part of the TIPSTER Text program. Its purpose is to support and encourage research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies and to increase the speed of lab-to-product transfer of technology. TREC's evaluation protocols have improved many search technologies. A 2010 study estimated that "without TREC, U.S. Internet users would have spent up to 3.15 billion additional hours using web search engines between 1999 and 2009." Hal Varian the Chief Economist at Google wrote that "The TREC data revitalized research on information retrieval. Having a standard, widely available, and carefully constructed set of data laid the groundwork for further innovation in this field." Each track has a challenge wherein NIST provides participating groups with data sets and test problems. Depending on track, test problems might be questions, topics, or target extractable features. Uniform scoring is performed so the systems can be fairly evaluated. After evaluation of the results, a workshop provides a place for participants to collect together thoughts and ideas and present current and future research work.Text Retrieval Conference started in 1992, funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Project) and run by NIST. Its purpose was to support research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. == Goals == Encourage retrieval search based on large text collections Increase communication among industry, academia, and government by creating an open forum for the exchange of research ideas Speed the transfer of technology from research labs into commercial products by demonstrating substantial improvements retrieval methodologies on real world problems To increase the availability of appropriate evaluation techniques for use by industry and academia including development of new evaluation techniques more applicable to current systems TREC is overseen by a program committee consisting of representatives from government, industry, and academia. For each TREC, NIST provide a set of documents and questions. Participants run their own retrieval system on the data and return to NIST a list of retrieved top-ranked documents. NIST pools the individual result judges the retrieved documents for correctness and evaluates the results. The TREC cycle ends with a workshop that is a forum for participants to share their experiences. == Relevance judgments in TREC == TREC defines relevance as: "If you were writing a report on the subject of the topic and would use the information contained in the document in the report, then the document is relevant." Most TREC retrieval tasks use binary relevance: a document is either relevant or not relevant. Some TREC tasks use graded relevance, capturing multiple degrees of relevance. Most TREC collections are too large to perform complete relevance assessment; for these collections it is impossible to calculate the absolute recall for each query. To decide which documents to assess, TREC usually uses a method call pooling. In this method, the top-ranked n documents from each contributing run are aggregated, and the resulting document set is judged completely. == Various TRECs == In 1992 TREC-1 was held at NIST. The first conference attracted 28 groups of researchers from academia and industry. It demonstrated a wide range of different approaches to the retrieval of text from large document collections .Finally TREC1 revealed the facts that automatic construction of queries from natural language query statements seems to work. Techniques based on natural language processing were no better no worse than those based on vector or probabilistic approach. TREC2 Took place in August 1993. 31 group of researchers participated in this. Two types of retrieval were examined. Retrieval using an ‘ad hoc’ query and retrieval using a ‘routing' query In TREC-3 a small group experiments worked with Spanish language collection and others dealt with interactive query formulation in multiple databases TREC-4 they made even shorter to investigate the problems with very short user statements TREC-5 includes both short and long versions of the topics with the goal of carrying out deeper investigation into which types of techniques work well on various lengths of topics In TREC-6 Three new tracks speech, cross language, high precision information retrieval were introduced. The goal of cross language information retrieval is to facilitate research on system that are able to retrieve relevant document regardless of language of the source document TREC-7 contained seven tracks out of which two were new Query track and very large corpus track. The goal of the query track was to create a large query collection TREC-8 contain seven tracks out of which two –question answering and web tracks were new. The objective of QA query is to explore the possibilities of providing answers to specific natural language queries TREC-9 Includes seven tracks In TREC-10 Video tracks introduced Video tracks design to promote research in content based retrieval from digital video In TREC-11 Novelty tracks introduced. The goal of novelty track is to investigate systems abilities to locate relevant and new information within the ranked set of documents returned by a traditional document retrieval system TREC-12 held in 2003 added three new tracks; Genome track, robust retrieval track, HARD (Highly Accurate Retrieval from Documents) == Tracks == === Current tracks === New tracks are added as new research needs are identified, this list is current for TREC 2018. CENTRE Track – Goal: run in parallel CLEF 2018, NTCIR-14, TREC 2018 to develop and tune an IR reproducibility evaluation protocol (new track for 2018). Common Core Track – Goal: an ad hoc search task over news documents. Complex Answer Retrieval (CAR) – Goal: to develop systems capable of answering complex information needs by collating information from an entire corpus. Incident Streams Track – Goal: to research technologies to automatically process social media streams during emergency situations (new track for TREC 2018). The News Track – Goal: partnership with The Washington Post to develop test collections in news environment (new for 2018). Precision Medicine Track – Goal: a specialization of the Clinical Decision Support track to focus on linking oncology patient data to clinical trials. Real-Time Summarization Track (RTS) – Goal: to explore techniques for real-time update summaries from social media streams. === Past tracks === Chemical Track – Goal: to develop and evaluate technology for large scale search in chemistry-related documents, including academic papers and patents, to better meet the needs of professional searchers, and specifically patent searchers and chemists. Clinical Decision Support Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for linking medical cases to information relevant for patient care Contextual Suggestion Track – Goal: to investigate search techniques for complex information needs that are highly dependent on context and user interests. Crowdsourcing Track – Goal: to provide a collaborative venue for exploring crowdsourcing methods both for evaluating search and for performing search tasks. Genomics Track – Goal: to study the retrieval of genomic data, not just gene sequences but also supporting documentation such as research papers, lab reports, etc. Last ran on TREC 2007. Dynamic Domain Track – Goal: to investigate domain-specific search algorithms that adapt to the dynamic information needs of professional users as they explore in complex domains. Enterprise Track – Goal: to study search over the data of an organization to complete some task. Last ran on TREC 2008. Entity Track – Goal: to perform entity-related search on Web data. These search tasks (such as finding entities and properties of entities) address common information needs that are not that well modeled as ad hoc document search. Cross-Language Track – Goal: to investigate the ability of retrieval systems to find documents topically regardless of source language. After 1999, this track spun off into CLEF. FedWeb Track – Goal: to select best resources to forward a query to, and merge the results so that most relevant are on the top. Federated Web Search Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for the selection and combination of search results from a large number of real on-line web search services. Filtering Track – Goal: to binarily decide retrieval of new
Grammatik
Grammatik was the first grammar-checking program for home computers. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, NM, released the earliest version of this diction and style checker for personal computers. It was first released no later than 1981, and was inspired by the Writer's Workbench. Grammatik was first available for the TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Subsequent versions were released for MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh, and Unix. Grammatik was ultimately acquired by WordPerfect Corporation and is integrated into the WordPerfect word processor.
Sentence extraction
Sentence extraction is a technique used for automatic summarization of a text. In this shallow approach, statistical heuristics are used to identify the most salient sentences of a text. Sentence extraction is a low-cost approach compared to more knowledge-intensive deeper approaches which require additional knowledge bases such as ontologies or linguistic knowledge. In short, sentence extraction works as a filter that allows only meaningful sentences to pass. The major downside of applying sentence-extraction techniques to the task of summarization is the loss of coherence in the resulting summary. Nevertheless, sentence extraction summaries can give valuable clues to the main points of a document and are frequently sufficiently intelligible to human readers. == Procedure == Usually, a combination of heuristics is used to determine the most important sentences within the document. Each heuristic assigns a (positive or negative) score to the sentence. After all heuristics have been applied, the highest-scoring sentences are included in the summary. The individual heuristics are weighted according to their importance. === Early approaches and some sample heuristics === Seminal papers which laid the foundations for many techniques used today have been published by Hans Peter Luhn in 1958 and H. P Edmundson in 1969. Luhn proposed to assign more weight to sentences at the beginning of the document or a paragraph. Edmundson stressed the importance of title-words for summarization and was the first to employ stop-lists in order to filter uninformative words of low semantic content (e.g. most grammatical words such as of, the, a). He also distinguished between bonus words and stigma words, i.e. words that probably occur together with important (e.g. the word form significant) or unimportant information. His idea of using key-words, i.e. words which occur significantly frequently in the document, is still one of the core heuristics of today's summarizers. With large linguistic corpora available today, the tf–idf value which originated in information retrieval, can be successfully applied to identify the key words of a text: If for example the word cat occurs significantly more often in the text to be summarized (TF = "term frequency") than in the corpus (IDF means "inverse document frequency"; here the corpus is meant by document), then cat is likely to be an important word of the text; the text may in fact be a text about cats.
SemEval
SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented
FloodAlerts
FloodAlerts is a software application, developed by software specialists Shoothill, which takes real-time flooding information, and displays the data on an interactive Bing map, updating and warning its users when they, their premises or the routes they need to travel could be at risk of flooding. == History == FloodAlerts was launched in 2012, originally as the world's first Facebook flood warning app. == Operation == FloodAlerts is made available free of charge to individuals. Users are able to set up their own monitored locations and receive alerts via the application or their Facebook wall if the locations they are monitoring are at imminent risk of flooding. Hosted in the Cloud, using the Microsoft Windows Azure platform, the FloodAlerts application processes the data received from the Environment Agency, automatically creates the required map tiles, pins and alerts and displays them on an interactive Bing map, updating the content every 15 minutes. Users are able to see the latest information on the map without having to refresh their browser. FloodAlerts can also be provided as a customised risk management solution to businesses that require infrastructure or asset safety monitoring in areas where water levels are rising or receding. == Awards and recognition == FloodAlerts has received The Guardian and Virgin Media Business's 2012 Innovation Nation Awards and was shortlisted as a finalist for a further two national awards: the UK IT Industry Awards for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and The Institution of Engineering and Technology Innovation Awards for Information Technology. == In the press == The FloodAlerts application was reviewed on the BBC website. It was also reviewed on BBC Click.