"... In PAGE 5: ... This allows us to compare our new semantic annotation using the attributes in agreement to our old anno- tation stemming from the record matching. Table4 reports our old record linkage F-measure as Prev. F-Mes.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... Applied to the football domain, SCHUG inspects the com- mon MUMIS ontology and enriches the linguistic annotation produced with domain-specific information encoded in the ontology. Below (see Table2 ) we show one example of the semantic annotation generated by SCHUG when applied to an on-line ticker text (game England-Germany). Here, vari- ous relations (player, location, etc.... ..."

"... In PAGE 7: ... This allows us to compare our seman- tic annotation using the attributes in agreement to the anno- tation stemming from our previous record matching method. In Table7 we report the previous record linkage F-measure... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ...0 n/a n/a 5. PLATFORM SUMMARY The semantic annotation platforms shown in Table2 and discussed briefly in Section 3 are distinguished by various attributes that have an impact on their automated semantic annotation effectiveness. For example, the method used to find entities is the major determinant in performance.... In PAGE 4: ... This feedback cycle results in more accurate annotations over time [18]. Pattern-based systems often require the manual generation of rules, as shown in Table2 . The notable difference is the recent work done with PANKOW [5] to automatically discover an initial set of seed patterns.... ..."

"... In PAGE 10: ... These goals are considerations platforms must take into account. As shown in Table1 , several SAPs have been already been developed, but they are not implementation clones of one another. Instead, each SAP is designed to address a slightly different annotation need.... In PAGE 10: ... Instead, each SAP is designed to address a slightly different annotation need. Table1 shows some key considerations for developing a SAP, listed by platform. The document type shows the type of input typically presented to the platform.... In PAGE 19: ... For this reason, the IE approach of each platform is used to organize the platforms. Table1 in the previous section lists several semantic annotation platforms and the information extraction method used by each. As semantic platforms develop, it is anticipated that the classification structure will adapt to newer approaches as well.... In PAGE 38: ... Future Trends Semantic annotation platforms for the Web have only recently been developed, and they are not complete in their accuracy and elimination of manual effort. The precision and recall still vary widely depending on the platform used, IE methods, and data source type (unstructured, semi-structured, or structured), as shown in Table1 . There still exists opportunity to improve the performance of SAPs and reduce their required manual effort.... In PAGE 45: ...1.2 Integration of HMMs into Semantic Annotation Platforms With the number of available semantic annotation platforms currently available, as shown in Table1 , it is possible to extend existing SAPs with newer annotation implementations that may lead to improved annotation accuracy beyond what current platforms are producing. While work has been done to use HMMs in information extraction, as discussed previously, and related work has also been done to perform annotation in a domain search project, HMMs have not been integrated with any of the SAPs to date.... ..."

"... In PAGE 22: ...nput pre xes for j 2 J. Let V : J * V and B J with B \ dom(V ) = ;. The notations P j2J Rj and ? P j2J Rj V B are referred to as bare and annotated choice, respectively. Annotated choice is given the operational semantics in Table3 . The dynamics of annotated choice mimic precisely the behavior of the intended low-level process.... In PAGE 25: .... Straightforward. Neither A[[ ]] nor F[[ ]] erase names. Free (bound) occurrences of names of terms correspond to free (bound) occurrences in their translations. The most important property of the factorization is that the semantics of annotated choice (cf Table3 ) precisely mirrors the behavior of the original translations and their derivatives. Proposition 6.... In PAGE 42: ...3.2, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj V B where, according to the rules in Table3 , there are three subcases. The proof in each case is to be read if-and-only-if since the enabling side-conditions for the respective transitions of A and its translation F[[ A ]] coincide in each case.... In PAGE 44: ...3.2, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj V B where, by the operational rules in Table3 , there are three subcases.... ..."

"... In PAGE 31: ...nput pre xes for j 2 J.Letv:J*Vand B J with B \ V = ;,whereV := dom(v). Then, P j2J Rj and parenleftbig P j2J Rj v B are referred to as bare and annotated choice, respectively. Annotated choice is given the operational semantics in Table5 . The dynamics of annotated choice mimic precisely the behavior of the intended low-level process.... In PAGE 36: ... The important property of the factorization is that the semantics of annotated choice (cf. Table5 ) precisely mirrors the behavior of the original translations and their derivatives. Proposition 5.... In PAGE 38: ... By the simpli cation discussed in Section 5.1, it su ces to regard the case A = parenleftbig P j2J Rj v B where, by the operational rules in Table5 , there are three subcases. case (committed) B 6 = ; : Then, U[[[ A ]] = Q j 2V y j v j .... In PAGE 57: ... By the simpli cation discussed in Section 5.1, it su ces to regard the case A = parenleftbig P j2J Rj v B where, according to the rules in Table5 , there are three subcases. The following proofs are in each case to be read if-and-only-if since the enabling side- conditions for the respective transitions of A and its translation F[[ A ]] coincide in each case.... ..."

"... In PAGE 25: ...re xes for j 2 J. Let v : J * V and B J with B \ V = ;, where V := dom(v). Then, P j2J Rj and ? P j2J Rj v B are referred to as bare and annotated choice, respectively. Annotated choice is given the operational semantics in Table5 . The dynamics of annotated choice mimic precisely the behavior of the intended low-level process.... In PAGE 29: ...The encoding F[[ ]] : P( ) ! T acts homomorphically on every constructor but annotated choice according to the scheme in x4. For annotated choice, the translation F h ? P j2J Rj v B i def= (l) lb Q j2Jn(V [B) Readlh F[[ Rj ]] i Q j2V Testlh F[[ Rj ]] i fv(j)=xg where b is t, if B = ;, and f, otherwise, expands the abbreviations into the intended target term by following the semantic rules in Table5 . Branches in Test-state are those that carry values (therefore j 2 V ); the substitution fv(j)=xg replaces the input variable in the continua- tion process Pj with the corresponding value.... In PAGE 29: ... The important property of the factorization is that the semantics of annotated choice (cf. Table5 ) precisely mirrors the behavior of the original translations and their derivatives. Proposition 5.... In PAGE 31: ... By the simpli cation discussed in Section 5.1, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj v B where, by the operational rules in Table5 , there are three subcases. case (committed) B 6 = ; : Then, U[[[ A ]] = Q j2V yj vj .... In PAGE 46: ... By the simpli cation discussed in Section 5.1, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj v B where, according to the rules in Table5 , there are three subcases. The following proofs are in each case to be read if-and-only-if since the enabling side-con- ditions for the respective transitions of A and its translation F[[ A ]] coincide in each case.... ..."

"... In PAGE 19: ...re xes for j 2 J. Let V : J * V and B J with B \ dom(V ) = ;. The notations P j2J Rj and ? P j2J Rj V B are referred to as bare and annotated choice, respectively. Annotated choice is given the operational semantics in Table3 . The dynamics of annotated choice mimic precisely the behavior of the intended low-level process.... In PAGE 22: ... Let b be t if B = ; and f otherwise. For annotated choice, the translation F[[ ? P j2J Rj V B ]] def= ( l) lhbi j Q j2Jn(V [B) Initlh F[[ Rj ]] i j Q j2V Locklh F[[ Rj ]] ifV (j)=xg expands the abbreviations into the intended target term by following the semantic rules in Table3 . Branches in lock-state are those which carry values (therefore j 2 V ); the substitution fV (j)=xg replaces the input variable in the continuation process Pj with the corresponding value.... In PAGE 22: .... Straightforward. Neither A[[ ]] nor F[[ ]] erase names. Free (bound) occurrences of names of terms correspond to free (bound) occurrences in their translations. The most important property of the factorization is that the semantics of annotated choice (cf Table3 ) precisely mirrors the behavior of the original translations and their derivatives. Proposition 6.... In PAGE 37: ...3.2, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj V B where, according to the rules in Table3 , there are three subcases. The proof in each case is to be read if-and-only-if since the enabling side-conditions for the respective transitions of A and its translation F[[ A ]] coincide in each case.... In PAGE 39: ...3.2, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj V B where, by the operational rules in Table3 , there are three subcases. case (committed) B 6 = ; : Then, U[[[ A ]] = Q j2V Mj .... ..."