Notes from short-proposal.txt 3 themes: (Yulia, Stefano, MartinA, SusanneL) 1) Modelling of human communication in order to improve generation process (Joost) (Jacco) 2) architecture of such systems feedback to presentation generation, Web technology, Semantic Web This is the new media bit, new culture, new ways of authoring, interacting (Katya, Jana, Katharina, MartinA, Maja, _V2) 3) conscious of changes in way we interact and store information cultural creation, presentation and storage of information changes. There is no single source any more. There are multiple sources. C.f. boxes in rede: domain (Guus) user (1) discourse (1) graphic design (1) media characteristics (1) device (uninteresting) architecture of putting it all together (2) What is the Added value? and what do we do. E.g. added value of identifying objects in video and auto connecting other topics to it. Our research results will be tested in demonstration domains, in particular cultural heritage. Want to say short term applications, medium term research results and longer term more risky "where are we going" - bullet #3. Longer proposal can consider the matrix short/medium/long with each of the three "topics". - nope, too long. Also say are currently involved in projects with CH partners - I2RP, CHIME, MultimediaN. Expect both input into requirements and feedback on technology. "Selling your own perspective." ===== To enable a system to tackle these issues requires explicit knowledge of: underlying connections in the retrieved information; information communication strategies; graphic design skills for conveying information effectively; the supporting technology and its limitations. Our approach includes the investigation of the following. 1) The modelling of human communication in order to improve the presentation generation process. This includes making theories of communication processes, media modalities and graphic design explicit and computable. 2) Software architectures of such systems to allow flexible and efficient presentation generation. This will be carried out in close conjunction with the development of both Web and Semantic Web technology. 3) The development of metadata annotation resources and strategies from an information archiver's point of view. This will be carried out in conjunction with relevant international initiatives (such as W3C's Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment ) and national cultural heritage archives (such as Digital Erfgoed Nederland, Koningklike Bibliotheek and Rijskmuseum). In particular how the process of archival (in particular semantic annotation) needs to be influenced by the needs of an end-user presentation generation process. =========== Grice's maxims Maxim of Quantity: (sufficient) 1. Make your contribution to the conversation as informative as necessary. 2. Do not make your contribution to the conversation more informative than necessary. Maxim of Quality: (correct) 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Maxim of Relevance: (relevant) Be relevant (i.e., say things related to the current topic of the conversation). Maxim of Manner: (not excessive) 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary wordiness). 4. Be orderly. ================= Inspired by SIKS day 120304 Can I do something with top down/bottom up? Bottom up selection of relevant media items, and analyse "patterns"/ "commonalities" in the group. Top down generation of reasonable discourse based on discourse knowledege. Top down/bottom up graphic design = consistency? Colours chosen from particular images are applied "top down" to multiple parts of presentation. Also the feedback of build up of may local to global rule and feeding back to itself. (These dependencies are what makes it tricky.) I think this is in the 6 points in the Breure paper? Tech report?? Don't forget WAI - this is an application of our work. (Are there specific challenges?) ======== Comments from FrankvH 140304 Not good (short proposal - hadn't read summary): (1) Too much phrased in terms of technology we will develop. Architecture, implement, (underlined) What is the question that will be answered (with technology involved along the way, not driving it)? (Done better in the summary.) In summary, formalization and analysis first. So words are better. In meeting people will look at short proposal and no longer summary. --- (2) Very fuzzy research goal "explore potential". What is the question you want answered, theory you want to develop, something to model or formalize. Better is " This proposal aims at formalizing the relevant parts of existing communication theory on discourse modeling, information design and user analysis to the extent it can be used to improve the support offered by computers in the presentation process. --- (3) Short proposal started in the middle. Liked the intro para in summary. = make the summary a summary and include bits in the short proposal. --- (4) didn't like part in summary of woolly points at end. an open and pragmatic approach that is, where possible, based on the reuse of existing knowledge, (too woolly to say anything) parallel development of knowledge bases with the required presentation software components and (sort of reasonable description of approach) use of open (Semantic) Web standards. (out of place - about technology we want to use. We don't care about RDF, XML , 1st order logic.) --- Delete all mention of developing architectures. (3rd para short-proposal) information design + graphic design -> presentation design --- What is the form that I expect that the outcome will be in? Show that I know what I am going to do. Description logics for users?? Deductive reasoning? Case-based reasoning? Semantic networks for domain model. RDF - semantic network RDFS - +/- frames OWL = description logic use RHS terms, not LHS terms constraint logic, constraint solving grammar for tree transformations (smart style vicious triangle) --- Move summary to short-proposal. Rewrite summary later. We expect to draw on a broad range of techniques ane methods fom different areas of computer science. In the past we have used such diverse methods as: logical constraints and constraint solving; tree grammar transofrmations; Allen's calculaus of temporal relations. Semantic networks, frame-based knowledge representations, dscription logic (?). --- Check proposal about three things to address: originality scientific new international contribution effective research method Were doing this on our own and other groups beginning to do similar stuff. Alan Bundy: What's the question I will answer/problem I will solve? Why now? Why me? How will I do it? How will I know I am done? (Expected outcome/benchmarks) Fortmalized knowledge about discuourse, design and users leading to a computational model, basis of implementation experiments to verify models. (see short-circuit bits) --- Dream land: Computer as active presentation device and not as passive rendering device. (Martin's grand scientific challenge...) translated into concrete research goals: formulate existing knowledge on discourse, presentation, user-models, and use these formalisations as the basis for a computational model. This proposal aims at... (see summary) ----- I can do this because: - in recent years I have started to build up a research group that does exactly this, using multidisc. contributions (cinematographic theory, design artists, hard-core computer scientists), we have made internationally recognised progress already. Don't mention the Semantic Web!