380 likes | 515 Views
Who are the Experts?. Simon Kampa IAM Group University of Southampton 20001. Who am I?. 3 rd Year Postgraduate Student IAM Group, University of Southampton Supervisor: Dr. Les Carr Research interests: metadata, semantic web, hypertext, ontologies. Agenda. Introduction and Background
E N D
Who are the Experts? Simon Kampa IAM Group University of Southampton 20001
Who am I? • 3rd Year Postgraduate Student • IAM Group, University of Southampton • Supervisor: Dr. Les Carr • Research interests: metadata, semantic web, hypertext, ontologies
Agenda • Introduction and Background • Scholarly Research on the WWW • Improvements • ESKIMO • Conclusion
Part 1: IntroductionIn a Nutshell • Problem: Scholarly research poorly supported by the WWW • PhD work draws from • Hypertext • Ontologies and Inference • Semantic Web
Background: Hypertext and Scholars • Problems with representing discourse • Problems with accurately linking a research field • Cognitive and information overload, disorientation • Need meaningful, structured, and consistent links
Background: Ontologies • “Specification of a conceptualisation” • Advantages: communications, system interoperability, consensus, reasoning • Disadvantages: time consuming, difficult to agree on a shared understanding
Background: Semantic Web • Automated information access based on machine-processible semantics • Architecture contains several layers • Intelligent Web • Requires technology from several fields • Metadata and parsers • Knowledge modelling • Reasoning services
Part II: Scholarly Research • Computer Science, Physics, … have good literature support on the WWW • But, current support duplicates traditional approach • Digital libraries and e-journals too literature focused
Research • Research requires systematic investigation of many resources (not only literature) • Scholar = Detective • Traditionally, very labour intensive task • WWW helps, but falls over on: • Search capabilities • Interlinking • Analysis
Some Typical Queries • What other papers has this author published? • What are the prominent papers in agent systems? • Which papers give a broader discussion on link semantics? • What impact has this project had? • Which institutes researching adaptive hypermedia have strong ties? • Who are the experts in agent systems?
Study • Study to investigate use of Web for academic research • 10 participants received typical research queries • Participants behaviour observed • Result: e-Scholar is poorly supported
Other problems … • Corpus not available • Financial barriers • Bibliographic tools • Commentary facilities • Lack of INTEGRATION
Part III: Improvements • Involve entire scholarly community • Interlinking of material • Structured and intuitive access to interlinked research information • Analysis of research to help solve the intricate queries that scholars make
Interlinking complex fields • Linking a complex field is difficult • Intricate real-life relationships • Combine ontology and hypertext • Ontology: provide the structure and understanding to express relationships • Hypertext: provide the linking mechanism
Ontological Hypertext • Result: intuitive and structured navigation style • Queries can now be resolved by following links, rather than issuing queries • Query-by-linking • Demonstrated in early prototype and then in the OntoPortal project
OntoPortal • Framework for creating research portals • Definite authoring overhead • Successfully implemented in • Metadata portal (DERA contract) • Teaching portal • Icon Directory • Provides a basic research environment
Analysis: Inference • Uncover information that the user is otherwise unaware of • Simplest example • Reflexive (hasAuthor hasWritten) • More interesting • Which papers has this team published? • Complex • Who are the seminal papers?
(Augmented) Bibliometrics • Co-citation, collaboration, impact factors • Can combine with new community knowledge • What impact has this research team had? • Which agent projects collaborate? • Which teams are frequently co-cited?
Part IV: ESKIMO • Extends concepts developed earlier • Developed scholarly community ontology • Added inference abilities • Added bibliometric facilities
Ontology Representation • RDFS used to represent scholarly ontology <rdf:Description ID="Conference"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Publication_Medium"/> </rdf:Description> . . . <rdf:Description ID="sponsoredBy"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Conference"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Society"/> </rdf:Description>
The System • Used ACM HT data from last 13 years as dataset • Data cleansing and some manual editing required • Resulted in about: • 12,000 unique instances • 34,000 relationships
Part V: Conclusions • Scholarly research poorly supported by the WWW • ESKIMO addresses some of the important issues • Awareness of entire scholarly community • Structured, intuitive interlinking • Ability to resolve the intricate queries we make • Questions?