Scheir Peter, Prettenhofer Peter, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Ghidini Chiara
2010
While it is agreed that semantic enrichment of resources would lead to better search results, at present the low coverage of resources on the web with semantic information presents a major hurdle in realizing the vision of search on the Semantic Web. To address this problem, this chapter investigates how to improve retrieval performance in settings where resources are sparsely annotated with semantic information. Techniques from soft computing are employed to find relevant material that was not originally annotated with the concepts used in a query. The authors present an associative retrieval model for the Semantic Web and evaluate if and to which extent the use of associative retrieval techniques increases retrieval performance. In addition, the authors present recent work on adapting the network structure based on relevance feedback by the user to further improve retrieval effectiveness. The evaluation of new retrieval paradigms - such as retrieval based on technology for the Semantic Web - presents an additional challenge since no off-the-shelf test corpora exist. Hence, this chapter gives a detailed description of the approach taken to evaluate the information retrieval service the authors have built.
Wolpers Martin, Kirschner Paul A., Scheffel Maren, Lindstaedt Stefanie , Dimitrova Vania
2010
Lindstaedt Stefanie , Duval E., Ullmann T.D., Wild F., Scott P.
2010
Research2.0 is in essence a Web2.0 approach to how we do research. Research2.0 creates conversations between researchers, enables them to discuss their findings and connects them with others. Thus, Research2.0 can accelerate the diffusion of knowledge.ChallengesAs concluded during the workshop, at least four challenges are vital for future research.The first area is concerned with availability of data. Access to sanitized data and conventions on how to describe publication-related metadata provided from divergent sources are enablers for researchers to develop new views on their publications and their research area. Additional, social media data gain more and more attention. Reaching a widespread agreement about this for the field of technology-enhanced learning would be already a major step, but it is also important to focus on the next steps: what are success-critical added values driving uptake in the research community as a whole?The second area of challenges is seen in Research 2.0 practices. As technology-enhanced learning is a multidisciplinary field, practices developed in one area could be valuable for others. To extract the essence of successful multidisciplinary Research 2.0 practice though, multidimensional and longitudinal empirical work is needed. It is also an open question, if we should support practice by fostering the usage of existing tools or the development of new tools, which follow Research 2.0 principles. What makes a practice sustainable? What are the driving factors?The third challenge deals with impact. What are criteria of impact for research results (and other research artefacts) published on the Web? How can this be related to the publishing world appearing in print? Is a link equal to a citation or a download equal to a subscription? Can we develop a Research 2.0 specific position on impact measurement? This includes questions of authority, quality and re-evaluation of quality, and trust.The tension between openness and privacy spans the fourth challenge. The functionality of mash-ups often relies on the use of third-party services. What happens with the data, if this source is no longer available? What about hidden exchange of data among backend services?
Schachner W.
2010
Schachner W.
2010
Schachner W.
2010