Transcript Interoperability among user-adaptive systems in the World Wide Web Francesca Carmagnola [email protected] Reading club 08 May 2007

Interoperability among
user-adaptive systems in the
World Wide Web
Francesca Carmagnola
[email protected]
Reading club 08 May 2007
What about me?
Master degree in Science and Communication (2004)
Communication medium and techniques
Currently
Ph.D. at Department of Computer Science,
University of Torino, Italy
My research interests
–
–
–
–
Adaptive Hypermedia Systems
User Modeling
Semantic Web
Web 2.0
Member of…
 SETA: “Intelligent User Interface” group
(http://www.di.unito.it/~seta/).
- Design and development of Intelligent Systems, based on
distributed architectures, and exploiting Internet technologies
-Exploitation of advanced AI techniques to improve the
interaction with the users
 CIRC (Interdepartmental Centre of Research on
Communication) at University of Turin
Social Media Applications Research & Tagging Laboratory
(http://www.smartlab.csp.it/)
- Multimedia innovative solutions for mobile users and
workers, by developing personalized services
The project which I am involved in….
adaptive
mobile
tourist
guides
Um + SW
DIADI
UbiquiTO-S
Interoperability among
user-adaptive systems in
the World Wide Web
(Ph.D. research)
E-tourism
Um + SW
Web 2.0 + Um
iCITY
Personalized
Digital Television
User Modeling + Semantic Web
User Modeling can benefit from techniques provided by SW:
• Standardization of languages
• Reuse of knowledge
•…
Semantic Web can benefit from personalization since it
enables sharing content and services which are tailored to the
needs of individual users (reducing information overload,
etc…)
DIADI
(Project financed by Region Piemonte, Ministry of Economy, EU)
Multi-channel adaptive platform, based on a semantic
representation of contents, for the negotiation
of requests toward providers
•Semantic representation of knowlegde (RDFS)
•Semantic representation of rules (inference rules and adaptation
rules)
•SemanticSearchEngine (used to query the ontologies),
implemented with SeRQL language over a RDF repository
•API delivered
http://talea.csp.it/it
UbiquiTO-S
Project Prin/Cofin, financed by Miur, in collaboration with the
universities of Udine, Pisa and with the CNR (Trento)
General framework (modular architecture) to develop
adaptive mobile tourist guides.
In particular, the role of our research group is:
- Study and management of the knowledge (concerning the user,
the domain and the context) required in adaptive context-aware
mobile guides (semantic modelling)
- Module for the dynamic generation of user interface, on the basis
of this knowledge.
E-Tourism
(in collaboration with Telecom Italia lab)
Project for the development of a tourist context-aware
guide which provides support and advices to the users
considering the current interaction context.
In particular, the role of our research group is:
Study of the meaning of the context in tourist context-aware
guide (physique, social and personal context)
-
-
Ontological modelling of such a context
Shift toward Web 2.0
Web 1.0
Web 2.0
Centralized production of
contents (top-down approach)
Decentralized production of
contents (bottom-up approach)
Peer production
Stand-alone user
Community
Social-network
Predefined navigation paths
Navigation by tags
Web 2.0 + Adaptation
Web 2.0
Adaptation
Decentralized production of
contents (bottom-up approach)
Peer production
Recommendation of contents
Adaptation to the device
Community
Social-network
Recommendation of “similar
users” (having similar interests)
Navigation by tags
Recommendation of tags
(most personal navigation)
Web 2.0 + Adaptation
Adaptation can benefit from Web 2.0
− user participation (insertion of information, tagging,
annotations) to learn about the user and thus to create/improve
her user model;
Web 2.0 can benefit from adaptation
− exploitation of the user model in order to help the user in
tagging and creating contents and to support the user in
navigation;
− creation of communities of users through the combination of
user modeling and participation (especially tagging);
− ….
iCITY
(in collaboration with the Municipality of Torino and SMARTLAB social media applications research and tagging Laboratory)
• Mobile;
• Adaptive;
• Web-based;
• Social guide;
• Providing personalized information about cultural events of the
city of Torino
iCITY - Main functionalities
See users that
inserted content
Share
bookmarks
navigate by
categories - by
tags
Share
tags
access cultural
events (by text
and map)
Tagging event
Bookmarking
preferred events
See and update
his user model
Insert content: i)new
event, ii)add
information to events,
iii) add comments
access
personalised
recommendations
http://www.icity.di.unito.it/dsa/
Personalized Digital Television
(in collaboration with Telecom Italia lab)
 Personalization techniques for the customization of the future
television services
 Customization of the Electronic Program Guides (EPG)
focused on the personalized selection of the TV programs to
be advertised, on the basis of the user's interests.
(Recommendations to help users on orientating into the very
large information space available in Digital TV)
 Use of tagging to refine use model and navigation paths
 Exploitation of such techniques within a prototype system for
the generation of personalized (EPGs).
 Multi-agent architecture to support the development of
highly configurable hybrid recommender systems, which
integrate different user modelling and recommendation
techniques to improve the recommendations to the user.
FINALLY MY PERSONAL RESEARCH…
Interoperability among
user-adaptive systems in the
World Wide Web
(Ph.D. research)
Starting assumptions
 Personalization crucial in many areas (e-learning, tourism,
digital libraries, e-commerce, etc.)
 The user spends her time interacting with many web-based
adaptive systems
 Possibility of having common knowledge about the user shared
across different systems
Share knowledge about the user across the different systems
she interact with!
Advantages of cross-systems personalization
 include in the user model features that one system could not
acquire by itself (Carmagnola and Cena, 2006)
 increase the amount of information about users, since there is
the chance to benefit from the efforts led by other modellers and
systems. It lets the “increased coverage” since more aspects can
be covered by the aggregated user model because of the variety of
the contributing systems. Ums themselves can be more accurate
and, as a consequence, the adaptation results are improved
(quantitative and qualitative improvement) (Stewart, Celik et al.
2006), (Berkovsky 2005)
Advantages of cross-systems personalization
 speed up the phase of the user model inizialization (Kobsa,
Koenemann et al. 2001)
 save the user from tedium of training new systems
 reduce the cost of user modelling sharing it among different
applications
 and many others…
Challenges of cross-systems personalization
 Why should commercial competitive systems cooperate?
 How to preserve user’s privacy?
 How to cope with syntactic and semantic heterogeneity of
information over the web?
My research
More specifically…
1. Analysis of the implications of interoperability in user
modeling
Syntactic
Semantic
2. Analysis of the phases required to get user model
interoperability
3. Framework providing a common base for the interoperability
of user model knowledge among user-adaptive systems in the
World Wide Web
1. Analysis of the implications of interoperability in
User Modeling
How to ensure syntactic and semantic interoperability?
Semantic Web techniques
 Languages for representing data ( RDF(S), OWL, etc…)
 Framework for stucturing data in a syntax-independent way
(ontologies)
 Languages for reasoning over knowledge (SWRL, OWL-S)
In my framework the User Model knowldege is ontologically
represented (RDFS)
2. Analysis of the phases required to get user model
interoperability
The cooperation among systems to exchange user model knowledge
can be seen as complex task:
A
Discovery phase:
Finding out the systems which store knowledge on a same user
B
Exchange (*):
Query for the required user data
C
Conflict resolution and evaluation:
- Need for suitable stategies to cope with semantic
interoperability
- Need for suitable stategies to check and solve conflicts and
evaluate if the exchanged data are reliable
* The most relevant researches have almost exclusively focused on the core part of the
cooperation of user adaptive systems, that is the exchange of data about users
3. Framework providing a common base for the
interoperability of user model knowledge among
user-adaptive systems in the World Wide Web
Requirements:
 every user should be able to declare what information to make
public
 every system should represent user knowledge in RDF(S) format
and like <p,v> pairs
 every system should make the repository (containing the
semantic representation of the Um) available to other systems
 the available information should be updated
 systems must be able to access, in a simple and efficient way,
to the user information which have been made available by other
systems
Need for a framework for storing, querying and retrieving
references to the semantic repositories: SESAME (http://openrdf.org/)
- Open source Java framework that can be used as a database server
which client applications can access through the HTTP protocol.
-SeRQL to query repositories
-To support Sesame servlet we encode the Java servlet technology in
an Apache Tomcat environment.
What already done thus far….
A
Discovery phase
 Identification algorithm, to discover systems which store
knowledge on a same user
 2 Java APIs to support designers and systems in performing
such a task
B Exchange
 Semantic representation of knowledge
 Semantic query for the required user data
What I would like to achieve from my visit in
Leeds?
C Conflict resolution and evaluation
- Need for suitable strategies to cope with semantic interoperability
(If system A says I like football and system B says I like soccer?)
(If system A says I like football and system B says I like sport?)
When semantic interoperability has been reached….
- Need for suitable strategies to check and solve conflicts and
evaluate if the exchanged data are reliable
(If system A says I like football and system B says I don’t like
soccer?)
(If system A says I like football and volleyball, and system B says
I don’t like sports?)
(If system A says I like football, and system B says I don’t like
football and system C says that I like football?)
ANY SUGGESTION?