Browse wiki
- +
No data available now. +
{{{Catalogue}}} +
We followed these steps:
– A set of 10 pre …
We followed these steps:
– A set of 10 predefined natural language queries has been prepared for evaluation
Table 4. Then, asking participants to try to answer these queries using their own
tools and services. The queries were chosen in increasing order of complexity.
– We implemented SPARQL queries corresponding to each of these queries to enable
non-expert participants, not familiar with SPARQL, to query the knowledge graph.
– We asked researchers to review the answers of the pre-defined queries that we formulated
based on the SemSur ontology. We asked them to tell us whether they
consider the provided answers and the way queries are formulated comprehensive
and reasonable.
– We finally asked the same researchers to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire with 18
questions14
sfaction questionnaire with 18
questions14 +
Accuracy +
Fill in a satisfaction questionnaire. +
The evaluation
started with the phase of letting researchers first read the given overview questions
and letting them try in their own way to find the respective answer. +
Involved researchers should be aware of the domain in use. +
No data available now. +
No data available now. +
No data available now. +
No data available now. +
5 out of the 9 researchers immediately sta …
5 out of the 9 researchers immediately started with wellknown
standardWeb search engines to explore the given topic. They tried to use several
variations of keywords from the questions, e.g., “Federated Query Engines”, “SPARQL
Federation”, etc. They also used digital libraries and scientific metadata services, e.g.,
ACM DL or Microsoft Academic Search, following the same approach and sometimes
using advanced search options and filters. However, the retrieved results were either
out of scope for the question but more related to the search keywords.
Overall, 8 researchers found it difficult to collect information and reach a conclusive
overview of the research topics or related work using current methods. Six of the
participants pointed out that for some of the overview questions, search engines were as
good as the proposed system particularly when the framework name is part of the search keyword. They all agreed that for complicated questions our SemSur approach outperformed
any existing approach/tool. Seven participants agreed that our system would be
helpful for both new and experienced researchers. Two-thirds of them strongly agreed
that the time and effort they spent to find such information using our system in comparison
to other traditional ways is relatively low. Finally, 100% of the participants would
like to use SemSur approach in their further research for studying the literature of a
research topic or writing a survey article. Since the results of queries were shown to
the participants in table view, the main feedback from all participants about possible
improvements was to provide a better way of data representation.
ovide a better way of data representation. +
1.0 +
Despite significant advances in technology …
Despite significant advances in technology, the way how research is done and especially communicated has not changed much. We have the vision that ultimately researchers will work on a common knowledge base comprising comprehensive descriptions of their research, thus making research contributions transparent and comparable. The current approach for structuring, systematizing
and comparing research results is via survey or review articles. In this article, we describe how surveys for research fields can be represented in a semantic way, resulting in a knowledge graph that describes the individual research problems, approaches, implementations and evaluations in a structured and comparable way. We present a comprehensive ontology for capturing the content of survey articles. We discuss possible applications and present an evaluation of our approach with the retrospective, exemplary semantification of a survey. We demonstrate the utility of the resulting knowledge graph by using it to answer queries about the different research contributions covered by the survey and evaluate how well the query answers serve readers’ information needs, in comparison to having them extract the same information from reading a survey paper.
e information from reading a survey paper. +
Structuring research results is via knowledge graph representation +
In this article, we presented SemSur, a Se …
In this article, we presented SemSur, a Semantic Survey Ontology, and an approach for
creating a comprehensive knowledge graph representing research findings. We see this
work as an initial step of a long-term research agenda to create a paradigm shift from
document-based to knowledge-based scholarly communication. Our vision is to have
this work deployed in an extended version of the existing OpenResearch.org platform.
We have created instances of three selected surveys on different fields of research
using the SemSur ontology. We evaluated our approach involving nine researchers. As
we see in the evaluation results, SemSur enables successful retrieval of relevant and
accurate results without users having to spend much time and effort compared to traditional ways. This ontology can have a significant influence on the scientific community
especially for researchers who want to create a survey article or write literature on a
certain topic. The results of our evaluation show that researchers agree that the traditional way of gathering an overview on a particular research topic is cumbersome
and time-consuming. Much effort is needed and important information might be easily
overlooked. Collaborative integration of research metadata provided by the community
supports researchers in this regard. Interviewed domain experts mentioned that it might
be necessary to read and understand 30 to 100 scientific articles to get a proper level of
understanding or an overview of a topic or sub-topics. A collaboration of researchers as
owners of each particular research work to provide a structured and semantic representation of their research achievements can have a huge impact in making their research
more accessible. A similar effort is spent on preparing survey and overview articles.
on preparing survey and overview articles. +
Integrating our methodology with the proce …
Integrating our methodology with the procedure of publishing survey articles can
help to create a paradigm shift. We plan to further extend the ontology to cover other research methodologies and fields. For a more robust implementation of the proposed approach, we are planning to use and significantly expand the OpenResearch.org platform
and a user-friendly SPARQL auto-generation services for accessing metadata analysis
for non-expert users. More comprehensive evaluation of the services will be done after
the implementation of the curation, exploration and discovery services. In addition, our
intention is to develop and foster a living community around OpenResearch.org and
SemSur, to extend the ontology and to ingest metadata to cover other research fields.
t metadata to cover other research fields. +
Semantic Metadata Enrichment, Quality Assessment, Recommendation Services, Scholarly Communication, Semantic Publishing +
Making research contributions transparent and comparable. +
Open source +
No data available now. +
No data available now. +
Creation date
"Creation date" is a predefined property that corresponds to the date of the first revision of a subject and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki.
13:38:04, 28 June 2018 +
Last editor is
"Last editor is" is a predefined property that contains the page name of the user who created the last revision and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki.
Modification date
"Modification date" is a predefined property that corresponds to the date of the last modification of a subject and is provided by Semantic MediaWiki.
08:25:39, 5 July 2018 +
No properties link to this page.