International Journal on Digital Libraries

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 299–308 | Cite as

Personalisation and recommender systems in digital libraries

  • Alan F. SmeatonEmail author
  • Jamie Callan
Regular contribution


Widespread use of the Internet has resulted in digital libraries that are increasingly used by diverse communities of users for diverse purposes and in which sharing and collaboration have become important social elements. As such libraries become commonplace, as their contents and services become more varied, and as their patrons become more experienced with computer technology, users will expect more sophisticated services from these libraries. A simple search function, normally an integral part of any digital library, increasingly leads to user frustration as user needs become more complex and as the volume of managed information increases. Proactive digital libraries, where the library evolves from being passive and untailored, are seen as offering great potential for addressing and overcoming these issues and include techniques such as personalisation and recommender systems. In this paper, following on from the DELOS/NSF Working Group on Personalisation and Recommender Systems for Digital Libraries, which met and reported during 2003, we present some background material on the scope of personalisation and recommender systems in digital libraries. We then outline the working group’s vision for the evolution of digital libraries and the role that personalisation and recommender systems will play, and we present a series of research challenges and specific recommendations and research priorities for the field.


Digital libraries User interaction Personalisation Recommender systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adaptive hypertext and hypermedia (2004) Last visited 16 June 2004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adar E, Kargar D, Stein LA (1999) Haystack: per-user information environments. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM), Kansas City, MO, pp 413–422Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almeida RB, Almeida VAF (2004) Reputation networks: a community-aware search engine. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on the World Wide Web, New York, pp 413–421Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arms WY (2001) Uniform resource names: handles, PURLs and digital object identifiers. Commun ACM 44(5):68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Babaian T, Grosz BJ, Shieber SM (2002) A writer’s collaborative assistant. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intelligent user interfacesGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baeza-Yates R, Ribeiro-Neto B (1999) Modern information retrieval. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belkin NJ, Cool C, Stin A, Thiel U (1995) Cases, scripts and information seeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems. Expert Syst Appl 9(3):379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown PJ, Jones GFJ (2001) Context-aware retrieval: exploring a new environment for information retrieval and information filtering. Personal Ubiquitous Comput 5(4):253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown PJ, Jones GFJ (2002) Information access and retrieval: exploiting contextual change in context-aware retrieval. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied computing, Madrid, pp 650–656Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brusilovsky P (199) Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia. User Modell User-Adapt Interact 6:87–129Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brusilovsky P, Kobsa A, Vassileva J (2002) Adaptive hypertext and hypermedia. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brusilovsky P, Maybury M (eds) (2002) From adaptive hypermedia to the adaptive web. Commun ACM 45(5):30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bush V (1945) As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, online version. Last visited 4 Feb 2004Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callan J, Smeaton AF (eds) (2001) Proceedings of the 2nd DELOS network of excellence workshop on personalisation and recommender systems in digital libraries. ERCIM Workshop Proceedings – No. 01/W03. Dublin City University, Ireland, June 2001. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Camp LJ (2002) Emerging applications: DRM: doesn’t really mean digital copyright management. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on computer and communications security, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christel M, Kanade T, Mauldin M, Reddy R, Sirbu M, Stevens S, Wactlar H (1995) Informedia digital video. Commun ACM 38(4):57–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clement A (1993) Privacy considerations in CSCW: report on the CSCW’92 workshop. ACM SIGCHI Bull 25(4):34–39Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dix AJ, Finlay JE, Abowd GD, Beale R (1998) Human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. (3rd edition available at Scholar
  19. 19.
    DLI (1996) The DLI testbeds: today and tomorrow. D-Lib Mag. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fenstermacher KD, Ginsburg M (2002) Mining client-side activity for personalization. In: Proceedings of the 4rth IEEE international workshop on advanced issues of e-commerce and Web-based information systems (WECWIS’02), Newport Beach, CA, p 205Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Field A, Hartel P, Mooij W (2001) Personal DJ: an architecture for personalised content delivery. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on the World Wide Web, Hong Kong, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gemmel J, Lueder R, Bell G (2003) The MyLifeBits lifetime store (demo description). In: ACM SIGMM 2003 workshop on experiential telepresence, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Han H, Giles CL, Manavoglu E, Zha H, Zhang Z, Fox EA (2003) Automatic document metadata extraction using support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ho Ha S (2002) Helping online customers decide through web personalization. IEEE Intell Syst 17(6):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Järvelin K, Wilson TD (2003) On conceptual models for information seeking and retrieval research. Inf Res 9(1). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Konstan JA, Miller BN, Maltz D, Herlocker JL, Gordon LR, Riedl J (1997) GroupLens: applying collaborative filtering to Usenet news. Commun ACM 40(3):77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar R, Raghavan P, Rajagopalan S, Tomkins A (1998) Recommendation systems: a probabilistic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual symposium on foundations of computer science, Palo Alto, CA, pp 664–673Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lam SK, Riedl J (2004) Shilling recommender systems for fun and profit. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on the World Wide Web, New York, pp 393–402Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    LANL (2004) MyLibrary @LANL. Last visited 4 Feb 2004Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu H, Maes P (2004) User modelling I: what would they think? A computational model of attitudes. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent user interfacesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Manber U, Patel A, Robison J (2000) Experience with personalization of Yahoo ! Commun ACM 43(8):35–39Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marshall CC, Golovchinsky G, Price M (2001) Digital libraries and mobility. Commun ACM 44(5):55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McArthur D, Giersch S, Graves B, Ward C, Dillaman R, Herman R, Lugo G, Reeves J, Vetter R, Knox D, Owen S (2001) Towards a sharable digital library of reusable teaching resources. Commun ACM 44(5):79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGrath R, Futrelle J, Plante R, Guillaume D (1999) Digital library technology for locating and accessing scientific data. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on digital libraries, Berkeley, CA, pp 188–194Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moen WE (2001) Mapping the interoperability landscape for networked information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Roanoke, VA, pp 50–51Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moriarty C, Kushmerick N, Smyth B (2001) Personalised intelligent tutoring for digital libraries. In [14]Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    MovieLens (2004) The MovieLens home page. Last visited 4 Feb 2004Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    OCLC (2004) The Dublin core: a simple content description for electronic resources. Last visited 15 June 2004Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paepcke A, Chang C-C, Winograd T, Garcia-Molina H (2001) Interoperability for digital libraries worldwide. Commun ACM 41(4):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ramakrishnan N (2000) PIPE: Web personalization by partial evaluation. IEEE Internet Comput 4(6):21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ramakrishnan N, Keller BJ, Mirza BJ, Grama AY, Karypis G (2001) Privacy risks in recommender systems. IEEE Internet Comput 5(6):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rossi G, Schwabe D, Danculovic J, Miaton L (2001) Patterns for personalized web applications. In: Rüping A, Eckstein J, Schwanninger C (eds) Proceedings of EuroPlop-01Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rous B (2001) The ACM digital library. Commun ACM 44(5):90–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ruthven I, Lalmas M, van Rijsbergen CJ (2002) Combining and selecting characteristics of information use. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 53(5):378–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Samuelson P (2003) Digital rights management and fair use by design: DRM { and, or, vs.} the law. Commun ACM 46(4):41–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Samuelson P, Glushko RJ (1991) Intellectual property rights for digital library and hypertext publishing systems: an analysis of Xanadu. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM conference on hypertextGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sarwar B, Karypis G, Konstan J, Reidl J (2000) Analysis of recommendation algorithms for eCommerce. In: Proceedings of ACM’00 conference on electronic commerce, pp 158–167Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Savolainen R, Kari J (2003) Toward a contextual model of information seeking on the web. New Rev Inf Behav Res 4:155–175Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Smeaton AF, Callan J (2001) Workshop reports: joint DELOS-NSF workshop on personalisation and recommender systems in digital libraries. ACM SIGIR Forum Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smeaton AF, Murphy N, O’Connor NE, Marlow S, Lee H, McDonald K, Browne P, Ye J (2001) The Físchlár digital video system: a digital library of broadcast TV programmes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, Roanoke, VAGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Smith TR, Frew J (1995) Alexandria Digital Library. Commun ACM 38(4):61–62Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stanford University (2004) Stanford annotated interoperability bibliography. Last visited 14 June 2004Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stanford University (2004) Digital library resources. Last visited 17 June 2004Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stevens S, Christel M, Wactlar H (1994) Informedia: improving access to digital video. Interactions 1(4):67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Torres R, McNee S, Abel M, Kinstan J, Riedl J (2004) Collaboration and group work: enhancing digital libraries with TechLens+. In: Proceedings of the 2004 joint ACM/IEEE-CS conference on digital librariesGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    University of California, Berkeley (2004) Information privacy in ubiquitous computing – background readings. Last updated 1 April 2004Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Various (2001) Special issue on the theme digital libraries. Commun ACM 44(5)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vertegaal R (ed) (1997) Readings in CSCW. Centre of Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT), Twente University, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    W3C (2004) Metadata activity statement. Last visited 15 June 2004Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Weiser M (1993) Ubiquitous computing. IEEE Comput 26(10):71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wilson TD (1999) Models in information behaviour research. J Document 55(3):249–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yahoo, Inc (2004) The My Yahoo ! home page. Last visited 4 Feb 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Digital Video ProcessingDublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations