Metadata for social recommendations: Storing, sharing, and reusing evaluations of learning resources

Social Information Retrieval Systems: Emerging Technologies and Applications for Searching the Web Effectively

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 87-107

  Vuorikari, Riina ^a   Manouselis, Nikos ^b   Duval, Erik ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900586531     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-543-6.ch005     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Towards the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(6), 734-749.
2. Anderson, M., Ball, M., Boley, H., Greene, S., Howse, N., Lemire, D., & McGrath, S. (2003). RACOFI: A rule-applying collaborative filtering system. Proceedings of IEEE/WIC COLA'03, Halifax, Canada (NRC 46507).
3. Bartlett, K. (2001, June 15). Backlash vs. third-party annotations from MS smart tags. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-annotation/2001JanJun/0115.html
4. Beard, K. (1996). A structure for organizing metadata collection. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, NM.
5. Burke, R. (2002). Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12, 331-370.
6. Butler, B. (2001). KnowBit reference information: A knowledge base specification. Proceedings of the NISO Standards Review Meeting.
7. Currier, S., Barton, J., O'Beirne, R., & Ryan, B. (2004). Quality assurance for digital learn ing object repositories: Issues for the metadata creation process. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 5-20.
8. Devillers, R., Gervais, M., Bedard, Y., & Jeansoulin, R. (2002, March). Spatial data quality: From metadata to quality indicators and contextual end-user manual. Proceedings of the OEEPE/ISPRS Joint Workshop on Spatial Data Quality Management, Istanbul, Turkey.
9. Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: A new economy of education? USDLA Journal, 17(1).
10. Downes, S. (2004, June). Quality standards: It's all about teaching and learning? Proceedings of NUTN, Kennebunkport, ME.
11. Dron, J., Boyne, C., & Mitchell, R. (2002). Evaluating assessment using n-dimensional filtering. Proceedings of the AACE E-Learn Conference.
12. Duval, E. (2006). LearnRank: Towards a real quality measure for learning. In U. Ehlers & J.M. Pawlowski (Eds.), European handbook for quality and standardization in e-learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 457-463.
13. Duval, E., & Hodgins, W. (2004). Making metadata go away: Hiding everything but the benefits. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (DC2004), Shanghai, China.
14. Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Sutton, S., & Weibel, S.L. (2002). Metadata principles and practicalities. D-Lib Magazine, 8. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/weibel/04weibel.html
15. EQO (European Quality Observatory). (2004). The EQO model, v.1.2a. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.eqo.info/files/EQO-Model-1.2a.pdf
16. ETB. (2002). Recommended data model format to be used as a standard by national systems to include national/local resources in the EU Treasury Browser. European Treasury Browser (ETB), D4.2.
17. Eysenbach, G., Köhler, C., Yihune, G., Lampe, K., Cross, P., & Brickley, D. (2001). A metadata vocabulary for self- and third-party labeling of health Web sites: Health Information Disclosure, Description and Evaluation Language (HIDDEL). Proceedings of AIMA 2001. Retrieved 8 August, 2007 from http://www.medcertain.org/pdf/AMIA2001-final-edited-hiddel.pdf
18. GESTALT (Getting Educational Systems Talking Across Leading-Edge Technologies). (1999). D0401 courseware metadata design. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.fdgroup.co.uk/gestalt/
19. Guy, G., Powell, A., & Day, M. (2004). Improving the quality of metadata in e-print archives. Ariadne, 38.
20. Hanani, U., Shapira, B., & Shoval, P. (2001). Information filtering: Overview of issues, research and systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 203-259.
21. Hillman, D., Dusshay, N., & Phipps, J. (2004). Improving metadata quality: Augmentation and recombination. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (DC-2004), Shanghai, China.
22. IEEE LOM. (2002). Standard for learning object metadata. IEEE 1484.12.1-2002, IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee.
23. Insight. (2005). Insight dossier quality criteria. European Schoolnet. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://insight.eun.org/ww/en/pub/insight/thematic_dossiers/qualitycriteria.htm
24. INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe). (2005). Requirements for the definition of the INSPIRE implementing rules for metadata. Author.
25. ISO 15836. (2003). Information and documentation-the Dublin Core metadata element set. International Organization for Standardization.
26. IVOA (International Virtual Observatory Alliance). (2004). Resource metadata for the virtual observatory, version 1.01. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.ivoa.net/
27. Kumar, V., Nesbit, J., & Han, K. (2005). Rating learning object quality with distributed Bayesian belief networks: The why and the how. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05).
28. Lemire, D., Boley, H., McGrath, S., & Ball, M. (2005). Collaborative filtering and inference rules for context-aware learning object recommendation. International Journal of Interactive Technology & Smart Education, 2(3).
29. Manouselis, N., & Costopoulou, C. (2006). Quality in metadata: A schema for e-commerce. Online Information Review (OIR), Special Issue on Advances in Digital Information Services and Metadata Research, 30(3), 217-237.
30. MedCIRCLE. (2002, September). Towards a collaborative, open, semantic Web of trust for health information on the Web: Interoperability of health information gateways. Proceedings of the Med-CIRCLE Workshop: Collaboration for Internet Rating, Certification, Labeling and Evaluation of Health Information, Belgium.
31. Miller, B.N., Konstan, J.A., & Riedl, J. (2004). PocketLens: Toward a personal recommender system. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 22(3), 437-476.
32. Moen, W.E., Stewart, E.L., & McClure, C.R. (1998). Assessing metadata quality: Findings and methodological considerations from an evaluation of the U.S. Government Information Locator Service (GILS). Proceedings of the 5th International Forum on Research and Technology Advances in Digital Libraries (ADL '98). IEEE Computer Press.
33. Muirhead, B., & Haughey, B. (2003). An assessment of the learning objects, models and frameworks developed by the Learning Federation Schools Online Curriculum Content Initiative Australia. Prepared for the Le@rning Federation, Australia.
34. Nesbit, J., Belfer, K., & Vargo, J. (2002). A convergent participation model for evaluation of learning objects. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 105-120.
35. Nesbit, J.C., & Li, J. (2004). Web-based tools for learning object evaluation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications (vol. 2, pp. 334-339).
36. Najjar, J., Wolpers, M., & Duval, E. (2006). Towards effective usage-based learning applications: Track and learn from user experience(s). Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2006), The Netherlands.
37. NDN. (2004, November). Quality metadata. Position Paper, National Data Network (NDN) Metadata Workshop, Australia. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.nationaldatanetwork.org
38. NISO (National Information Standards Organization). (2004). Understanding metadata. NISO Press.
39. Ochoa, X., & Duval, E. (2006). Quality metrics for learning object metadata. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA 2006).
40. Oram, A. (Ed.). (2001). Peer-to-peer: Harnessing the power of disruptive technologies. O'Reilly.
41. Pawlowski, J. (2006). ISO/IEC 19796-1: How to use the new quality framework for learning, education, and training. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.qualityfoundation.org/ww/en/oub/efquel/qualityservices/publications.htm
42. Rafaeli, S., Dan-Gur, Y., & Barak, M. (2005). Social recommender systems: Recommendations in support of e-learning. Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 3(2), 29-45.
43. Recker, M.M., & Wiley, D.A. (2001). A non-authoritative educational metadata ontology for filtering and recommending learning objects. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 9(3), 255-271.
44. Recker, M.M., & Wiley, D.A. (2000, June). An interface for collaborative filtering of educational resources. Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Las Vegas, NV.
45. Recker, M., & Walker, A. (2003). Supporting 'word-of-mouth' social networks via collaborative information filtering. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(1), 79-98.
46. Recker, M., Walker, A., & Lawless, K. (2003). What do you recommend? Implementation and analyses of collaborative filtering of Web resources for education. Instructional Science, 31(4/5), 229-316.
47. Robertson, J.R. (2005). Metadata quality: Implications for library and information science professionals. Library Review, 54(5), 295-300.
48. Shon, J., & Musen, M.A. (1999). The low availability of metadata elements for evaluating the quality of medical information on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the 1999 American Medical Informatics Association Symposium(AMIA'99).
49. Shreeves, S.L., Riley, J., & Milewicz, E. (2006). Moving towards sharable metadata. First Monday, 11(8).
50. Steinacker, A., Ghavam, A., & Steinmetz, R. (2001). Metadata standards for Web-based resources. IEEE Multimedia, (January-March), 70-76.
51. Supekar, K. (2005). A peer-review approach for ontology evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th International Protégé Conference, Madrid, Spain.
52. Supekar, K., Patel, C., & Lee, Y. (2004). Characterizing quality of knowledge on semantic Web. In V. Barr & Z. Markov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS'04). AAAI Press.
53. Sutton, S.A. (1999). Conceptual design and deployment of a metadata framework for educational resources on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(13), 1182-1192.
54. Ternier, S., Olmedilla, D., & Duval, E. (2005). Peer-to-peer versus federated search: Towards more interoperable learning object repositories. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), (pp. 1421-1428).
55. Tzikopoulos, A., Manouselis, N., & Vuorikari, R. (2007). An overview of learning object repositories. In P. Northrup (Ed.), Learning objects for instruction: Design and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
56. Van Assche, F., & Vuorikari, R. (2006). A framework for quality of learning resources. In U. Ehlers & J.M. Pawlowski (Eds.), European handbook for quality and standardization in e-learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 443-456.
57. Walker, A., Recker, M., Lawless, K., & Wiley, D. (2004). Collaborative information filtering: A review and an educational application. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 14, 1-26.
58. Wayne, L. (2004, January). Quality metadata. Proceedings of the 2004 ESRI Federal User Conference, Washington, DC.
59. Wiley, D. (Ed.). (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington. IN: AECT. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://reusability.org/read/
60. World Wide Web Consortium. (n.d.). PICS-specification. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://www.w3c.org/PICS
61. Yamada, T. (2004, May). Role of metadata in quality assurance of multi-country statistical data in the case of UNIDO industrial statistics. Proceedings of the Conference on Data Quality for International Organizations, Germany.