skip to main content
10.1145/3197026.3197069acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesjcdlConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Prioritizing and Scheduling Conferences for Metadata Harvesting in dblp

Published:23 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Maintaining literature databases and online bibliographies is a core responsibility of metadata aggregators such as digital libraries. In the process of monitoring all the available data sources the question arises which data source should be prioritized. Based on a broad definition of information quality we are looking for different ways to find the best fitting and most promising conference candidates to harvest next. We evaluate different conference ranking features by using a pseudo-relevance assessment and a component-based evaluation of our approach.

References

  1. Brenda Reyes Ayala . 2017. We need new names: Applying existing models of Information Quality to web archives. TCDL Bulletin Vol. 13, 1 (2017). deftempurl%http://www.ieee-tcdl.org/Bulletin/v13n1/papers/reyes.pdf tempurlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates, Carlos Castillo, Mauricio Mar'ın, and M. Andrea Rodr'ıguez . 2005. Crawling a country: better strategies than breadth-first for web page ordering. In Proceedings of the 14th WWW 2005, Chiba, Japan, May 10--14, 2005. ACM, 864--872. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Na Dai and Brian D. Davison . 2010. Freshness Matters: In Flowers, Food, and Web Authority Proceeding of the 33rd ACM SIGIR 2010, Geneva, Switzerland, July 19--23, 2010. ACM, 114--121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Grettel Garc'ıa, Bernardo Pereira Nunes, Giseli Rabello Lopes, Marco Antonio Casanova, and Luiz André P. Paes Leme . 2017. Techniques for comparing and recommending conferences. J. Braz. Comp. Soc. Vol. 23, 1 (2017), 4:1--4:14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Waister Silva Martins, Marcos André Gonccalves, Alberto H. F. Laender, and Gisele L. Pappa . 2009. Learning to assess the quality of scientific conferences: a case study in computer science. In Proceedings of the JCDL 2009, Austin, TX, USA, June 15--19, 2009. ACM, 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Xiaolan Zhu and Susan Gauch . 2000. Incorporating quality metrics in centralized/distributed information retrieval on the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGIR 2000, Athens, Greece, July 24--28, 2000. ACM, 288--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Prioritizing and Scheduling Conferences for Metadata Harvesting in dblp

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      JCDL '18: Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
      May 2018
      453 pages
      ISBN:9781450351782
      DOI:10.1145/3197026

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 May 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      JCDL '18 Paper Acceptance Rate26of71submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate415of1,482submissions,28%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader