2001
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44566-8_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning Interaction Models in a Digital Library Service

Abstract: We present the exploitation of an improved version of the Learning Server for modeling the user interaction in a digital library service architecture. This module is the basic component for providing the service with an added value such as an essential extensible form of interface adaptivity. Indeed, the system is equipped with a web-based visual environment, primarily intended to improve the user interaction by automating the assignment of a suitable interface depending on data relative to the previous experi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This kind of collection personalization can be assisted by server‐side tools that profile the content of the library, maintain personal filters, and customize retrieval mechanisms (Jayawardana, Hewagamage, & Hirakawa, 2001). Ways for users to change their perspectives, and hence their interface and knowledge representations, in mid‐stream take personalization further (French, Chapin, & Martin, 2004); such flexibility also introduces problems for systems designed to “know” what interface a user needs (Semeraro, Ferilli, Fanizzi, & Abbattista, 2001). Personalization features linked to artificial intelligence are said to enhance user profile‐driven filtering services (Gentili, Micarelli, & Sciarrone, 2003).…”
Section: Functionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This kind of collection personalization can be assisted by server‐side tools that profile the content of the library, maintain personal filters, and customize retrieval mechanisms (Jayawardana, Hewagamage, & Hirakawa, 2001). Ways for users to change their perspectives, and hence their interface and knowledge representations, in mid‐stream take personalization further (French, Chapin, & Martin, 2004); such flexibility also introduces problems for systems designed to “know” what interface a user needs (Semeraro, Ferilli, Fanizzi, & Abbattista, 2001). Personalization features linked to artificial intelligence are said to enhance user profile‐driven filtering services (Gentili, Micarelli, & Sciarrone, 2003).…”
Section: Functionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An example of adaptive interface personalization using the first approach is Fernandez, Diaz, & Aedo (1999), which provides adaptation of the interface at a very basic level depending on the operative system and the hardware and software platform. Semeraro et al, (1999) and Semeraro et al, (2001) present an example of adaptive interface personalization using a stereotype, in this case the level of tool expertise. The system, once a user has started a session, obtains the level of expertise of the user and provides him/her with the most relevant interface .…”
Section: Adaptive Interface Personalizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In spite of the large amount of research work done by many researchers in the field of Private Information Retrieval [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] the most important question that has been raised is to reduce the communication complexity or exclude the preprocessing overload are still far from resolution. The burning problem is to understand whether PIR protocols involving constant number of servers require polynomial (or poly logarithmic) amount of communication.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%