Semantics and Experience in the Future Web
The Web is a vibrant environment for innovation in computer science, AI, and social interaction; these innovations come in such great number and speed that it is unlikely to follow them. This paper will focus on some emerging aspects on the web that are an opportunity and challenge for Case-based Reasoning, specifically the large amount of experiences that individual people share in the Web. The talk will try to characterize this experiences, these bits of practical knowledge that go from simple but practical facts to complex problem solving descriptions. Then, I’ll focus on how CBR ideas could be brought to bear in sharing and reusing this experiential knowledge, and finally on the challenging issues that have to be addressed for that purpose.
KeywordsExperiential Knowledge Experiential Content Large Repository Reuse Process Condorcet Jury Theorem
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American Magazine (2001)Google Scholar
- 3.Wittgenstein, L.: Investigacions filosòfiques (Philosophische Bemerkungen). Ed. Laia, Barcelona (1983) (1953)Google Scholar
- 4.Davies, J.: Semantic Web Technologies: Trends and Research in Ontology-based Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2006)Google Scholar
- 5.Benkler, Y.: The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press (2006)Google Scholar
- 6.Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based Reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Artificial Intelligence Communications 7(1), 39–59 (1994), http://www.iiia.csic.es/People/enric/AICom_ToC.html Google Scholar
- 7.Perrone, M.P., Cooper, L.N.: When networks disagree: Ensemble methods for hydrid neural networks. In: Artificial Neural Networks for Speech and Vision. Chapman-Hall, Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
- 8.Sunstein, C.R.: Group judgments: Deliberation, statistical means, and information markets. New York University Law Review 80, 962–1049 (2005)Google Scholar