Difference between revisions of "Task1"
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
on full-text extraction anyway, we replaced these queries (Q1.19 and Q1.20) by | on full-text extraction anyway, we replaced these queries (Q1.19 and Q1.20) by | ||
similar queries that only relied on information available from HTML sources. | similar queries that only relied on information available from HTML sources. | ||
| + | |since=2015-08-25 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Freitext= | =Freitext= | ||
Revision as of 06:43, 21 March 2023
Task
| Task | |
|---|---|
| id | 1 |
| title | Extraction and Assessment of Workshop Proceedings Information |
| objective | Common questions related to the quality of a scientific workshop or conference include whether a researcher should submit a paper to it or accept an invitation
to its program committee, whether a publisher should publish its proceedings, or whether a company should sponsor it [2]. Moreover, knowing the quality of an event helps to assess the quality of the papers accepted there. In the 2014 Challenge, we had designed Task 1 to extract from selected CEUR-WS.org work- shop proceedings volumes RDF that would enable the computation of certain indicators for the workshops’ quality [10]. The second objective of this effort was to bootstrap the publication of all CEUR-WS.org workshops – more than 1,400 at the time of this writing – as linked data. As discussed above in Section 2, we reused the 2014 queries, with two exceptions. As only one of the three 2014 submissions had addressed the two Task 1 queries that required metadata ex- traction from the PDF full text of the papers (cf. [7]), and as Task 2 focused on full-text extraction anyway, we replaced these queries (Q1.19 and Q1.20) by similar queries that only relied on information available from HTML sources. |
| since | 2015-08-25 |