CSC-581
Feedback on Various Class Aspects
02/06/10 17:11
Please follow the links below to provide feedback on various aspects of this class.
Mutual team member evaluation (this is important, it will be considered for the project score)
Final project presentation feedback
Class participation
Class feedback
Mutual team member evaluation (this is important, it will be considered for the project score)
Final project presentation feedback
Class participation
Class feedback
0 Comments
A4 Alternative: Adding Rules to Ontologies
27/05/10 10:22
- If you're interested in learning more about rules and ontologies, have a look at next part of the tutorial that Emily put together at https://wiki.csc.calpoly.edu/OntologyTutorial/wiki/AddingRulesToOntologiesWithJena#assignment .
- If you haven't done A4 yet, or if you're interested in doing this anyway, let me know, and we'll work out the arrangements.
Project - Final Presentations
25/05/10 14:29
We’ll do the final presentations/displays of the project on Thursday during normal class/lab hours and on Friday during the CSC project fair from 11 - 1.
Those teams presenting their project on Thursday should do a presentation in front of the class, using PowerPoint or something similar, in combination with a demonstration of their project. We’ll have a maximum of three presentations, so there are no serious time constraints. I suggest to plan for about 20 min of presentation and demonstration.
If your team does the display on Friday, you should prepare a poster board. If you want to, you can also use a laptop for demo purposes, but take into account that there are some constraints (very limited access to outlets, bright sunlight, noise).
You can structure your presentation or display any way you like, but you should address the following aspects:
Those teams presenting their project on Thursday should do a presentation in front of the class, using PowerPoint or something similar, in combination with a demonstration of their project. We’ll have a maximum of three presentations, so there are no serious time constraints. I suggest to plan for about 20 min of presentation and demonstration.
If your team does the display on Friday, you should prepare a poster board. If you want to, you can also use a laptop for demo purposes, but take into account that there are some constraints (very limited access to outlets, bright sunlight, noise).
You can structure your presentation or display any way you like, but you should address the following aspects:
- motivation and background
- related systems or methods
- system overview and architecture
- implementation
- experiments
- evaluation
- Since there is a broad scope of topics and designs, some of the above points may be less relevant for your project. You won’t necessarily lose points if you don’t address them, but you should at least consider them.
581 Final Version Paper - Deadline postponed to Tue, June 1
25/05/10 14:01
As mentioned in class, the deadline for the final version of the paper has been moved to Tue, June 1, midnight.
Paper Peer Review Feedback Template
16/05/10 20:16
Please use the template below for the feedback on the paper. It is also accessible through the Wiki on Blackboard (https://blackboard.calpoly.edu/webapps/lobj-wiki-bb_bb60/wiki/CSC-0480-fkurfess/course/581-S10 Paper Feedback Form). If you’ve already done the feedback for the draft version, it’s not necessary to redo it.
================================================================================
Peer Review Form CSC/CPE 581 "Computer Support for Knowledge Management" Spring 2010
Organizers:
Franz Kurfess, Cal Poly, USA (fkurfess@csc.calpoly.edu)
This is conducted as an "open" review, where the identities of authors and reviewers are revealed. Many conferences and publications use "blind" reviews, where the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author, or "double-blind" reviews, where the reviewers also don't know the identity of the authors.
Please post the completed form on the BlackBoard wiki. Create a new page, copy and paste this form, and then put a link in the "Feedback" column of the overview table pointing to the newly created page.
Deadline: 1 week after the submission of the proposal
================================================================================
Reviewer: Franz J. Kurfess
Author:
Title of Paper:
================================================================================
Rate the following items on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best.
Provide explanations for each category, and general comments at the end.
================================================================================
* Relevance [ ]
Is the paper closely related to the topic of the class?
Is the content interesting enough to the audience?
Is the paper understandable only by experts, or also by interested people
from other fields?
* Significance [ ]
How important is the work reported? Does it tackle an important/difficult problem (as opposed to a peripheral/simple one)?
Does the approach taken advance the state of the art?
Does it involve or synthesize known ideas, methods, or approaches?
Does it have interesting implications for multiple disciplines?
* Originality [ ]
Is this a new issue? Is this a novel approach to an issue?
Is this a novel combination of familiar ideas/techniques/methods/approaches?
Does the paper point out differences from related research?
Does the paper properly situate itself with respect to previous work?
* Quality [ ]
Is the paper technically sound? How are its claims backed up?
Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contribution?
* Clarity [ ]
Is the paper clearly written? Does it motivate the research?
Does it describe clearly the methods employed (e.g., experimental procedures, algorithms, analytical tools), if any?
Are the results, if any, described and evaluated thoroughly?
Is the paper organized in a sensible and logical fashion?
================================================================================
* Overall Recommendation
[ ] Accept as is
[ ] Accept with revisions
[ ] Reject
* Publication [ ]
Do you think that the paper (possibly in a revised or extended form) might be suitable for submission to a conference or workship, or for publication in a journal (e.g. ACM Crossroads)?
================================================================================
Comments for the authors:
================================================================================
Peer Review Form CSC/CPE 581 "Computer Support for Knowledge Management" Spring 2010
Organizers:
Franz Kurfess, Cal Poly, USA (fkurfess@csc.calpoly.edu)
This is conducted as an "open" review, where the identities of authors and reviewers are revealed. Many conferences and publications use "blind" reviews, where the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author, or "double-blind" reviews, where the reviewers also don't know the identity of the authors.
Please post the completed form on the BlackBoard wiki. Create a new page, copy and paste this form, and then put a link in the "Feedback" column of the overview table pointing to the newly created page.
Deadline: 1 week after the submission of the proposal
================================================================================
Reviewer: Franz J. Kurfess
Author:
Title of Paper:
================================================================================
Rate the following items on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best.
Provide explanations for each category, and general comments at the end.
================================================================================
* Relevance [ ]
Is the paper closely related to the topic of the class?
Is the content interesting enough to the audience?
Is the paper understandable only by experts, or also by interested people
from other fields?
* Significance [ ]
How important is the work reported? Does it tackle an important/difficult problem (as opposed to a peripheral/simple one)?
Does the approach taken advance the state of the art?
Does it involve or synthesize known ideas, methods, or approaches?
Does it have interesting implications for multiple disciplines?
* Originality [ ]
Is this a new issue? Is this a novel approach to an issue?
Is this a novel combination of familiar ideas/techniques/methods/approaches?
Does the paper point out differences from related research?
Does the paper properly situate itself with respect to previous work?
* Quality [ ]
Is the paper technically sound? How are its claims backed up?
Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contribution?
* Clarity [ ]
Is the paper clearly written? Does it motivate the research?
Does it describe clearly the methods employed (e.g., experimental procedures, algorithms, analytical tools), if any?
Are the results, if any, described and evaluated thoroughly?
Is the paper organized in a sensible and logical fashion?
================================================================================
* Overall Recommendation
[ ] Accept as is
[ ] Accept with revisions
[ ] Reject
* Publication [ ]
Do you think that the paper (possibly in a revised or extended form) might be suitable for submission to a conference or workship, or for publication in a journal (e.g. ACM Crossroads)?
================================================================================
Comments for the authors:
Access to Lecture Notes
11/05/10 14:19
Since this class combines aspects of 581 and 486, I had to make adjustments to the lecture notes, resulting in some broken links: The files with the slides is there, but the link to it doesn’t match the name. If you go to the directory containing the slides, you’ll see everything that is available, including the .key and .pdf versions, plus the concept map examples, and slides from previous years.
A4 Available
10/05/10 18:08
I just finished the specification for the last assignment, A4 - Usability Evaluation. Since it’s late coming out, I’ve pushed back the deadline to May 25.
Link for 6-Knowledge-Presentation.ppt fixed
06/05/10 14:38
In the schedule, the link for this week’s topic pointed to the wrong file (4-Knowledge-Presentation.ppt instead of 6-Knowledge-Presentation.ppt); it is fixed now.
Paper Proposal Grades and Feedback on Blackboard
04/05/10 14:39
I’ve posted the scores for the proposals on the Blackboard Gradebook. You can also find brief comments on the Wiki page with your proposal (except for those of you who linked directly to PDF documents or external pages).
A2 Quiz Available
23/04/10 17:16
I’ve given up for now trying to get the quiz on Blackboard to work, so we’ll just use the Google Web form version, Quiz: Ontologies with Protégé. It consists mostly of multiple choice and Yes/No questions, but also has space at the end for suggestions.
Paper Proposal Feedback
19/04/10 10:18
For the reviewer feedback, please select two paper proposals that you’d like to review by entering your name in one of the two columns “Feedback {1|2} Proposal” in the presentation schedule table on the Blackboard Wiki. Create a new page with your feedback, and link it to your name in the table. We’ll keep the feedback for the proposal informal; for the draft and final versions, I’ll have a template. You should look at the following issues:
- Relevance: Does the proposed topic appear to be relevant for the overall context of this class?
- Understandability: Do the title and abstract convey a sense of what the paper will be about?
- Background: Is there an indication of existing and related work that appears to be relevant for the topic? Are references given to sources for that work?
A2 Available
14/04/10 17:31
The description for the second assignment on ontologies is now available, together with the tutorial for developing ontologies with Protégé.
Concept Map Examples
08/04/10 10:17
I’ve created a new directory on my course Web page with the examples of concept maps.
This directory contains a collection of concept maps. Feel free to browse and use them. If you decide to incorporate parts into your own, please indicate the source.
The sub-directory FJK contains maps created by me (Franz J. Kurfess). All of my maps are in a draft stage, and many have been created by copying bits and pieces or whole maps, and replacing entries. As a consequence, you may find concepts and relations in a map that shouldn't be there, there might be mismatches between the concept and its description or resources, and the pathways may not make much sense for that map.
I’ve made the maps write-accessible, so you should be able to use the VUE Firefox plugin to edit them. Feel free to do so, but try not to mess them up too much. If anybody’s interested in augmenting or revising any of the maps so that they can be used for instructional purposes, let me know. I’d be especially interested in experimenting with creating such concept maps for broader topics in a collaborative manner.
Other maps are examples that I've downloaded from the Web.
This directory contains a collection of concept maps. Feel free to browse and use them. If you decide to incorporate parts into your own, please indicate the source.
The sub-directory FJK contains maps created by me (Franz J. Kurfess). All of my maps are in a draft stage, and many have been created by copying bits and pieces or whole maps, and replacing entries. As a consequence, you may find concepts and relations in a map that shouldn't be there, there might be mismatches between the concept and its description or resources, and the pathways may not make much sense for that map.
I’ve made the maps write-accessible, so you should be able to use the VUE Firefox plugin to edit them. Feel free to do so, but try not to mess them up too much. If anybody’s interested in augmenting or revising any of the maps so that they can be used for instructional purposes, let me know. I’d be especially interested in experimenting with creating such concept maps for broader topics in a collaborative manner.
Other maps are examples that I've downloaded from the Web.
Blackboard Access Set Up
08/04/10 10:07
I had my quarterly wrestling match with Blackboard, and it should be available now. We'll use it for the submission of assignments (there's a menu entry "Assignment Submission"), and for the research paper and presentation (under "581 Wiki"). If you already have a topic, pick a date, and enter your name and topic in the table with the presentation schedule. You'll also add a Wiki page there with your topic proposal, and later the draft and final versions of your paper and presentation material. Both A1 and the topic proposal are due next week.
Please note that the Wiki and the Discussion Board are part of a different, permanent course ( CSC-0480 ALL RELATED COURSES (CSC-0480-FKURFESS)), and linked to the 581 menu entry. I’ve copied the enrollment to that course, so it will appear in your list of Blackboard courses as well. Depending on how you navigate, you may also see the menu for that course, which has a greenish background. This linking business should be mostly invisible to you, however.
Please note that the Wiki and the Discussion Board are part of a different, permanent course ( CSC-0480 ALL RELATED COURSES (CSC-0480-FKURFESS)), and linked to the 581 menu entry. I’ve copied the enrollment to that course, so it will appear in your list of Blackboard courses as well. Depending on how you navigate, you may also see the menu for that course, which has a greenish background. This linking business should be mostly invisible to you, however.
Slides Week 2 Available
06/04/10 10:31
You can download the slides for Week 2 now, either through the schedule by clicking on the link for the topic, or by going to the directory http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~fkurfess/Courses/581/S10/Slides/. The latter is preferable if you want the Keynote version instead of a .ppt file.
Draft Project Template Available
06/04/10 10:19
I’ve finished the first version of the project template. We’ll discuss it in class.
Slides Week 1 Available
01/04/10 17:27
You can download the slides for Week 1 now, either through the schedule by clicking on the link for the topic, or by going to the directory http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~fkurfess/Courses/581/S10/Slides/. The latter is preferable if you want the Keynote version instead of a .ppt file.
Possible A4 Usability Evaluation Topic: NoodleNav
01/04/10 17:03
Here's a potential topic for Assignment 4 - Knowledge Usability Evaluation. Since in its present form, the system is not particularly knowledge-intensive, you'd have to consider its suitability for navigating "knowledge spaces" instead of maps.
New, often free, spatial information applications such as mapping tools, topological imaging, and geographic information systems are becoming increasingly available to the average computer user. These systems, which were once available only to government, scholastic, and corporate institutions with highly skilled operators, are driving a need for new and innovative ways for the average user to navigate and control spatial information intuitively, accurately, and efficiently. Gestures provide a method of control that is well suited to navigating the large datasets often associated with spatial information applications. Several different types of gestures and different applications that navigate spatial data are examined. This leads to the introduction of a system that uses a visual head tracking scheme for controlling of the most common navigation action in the most common type of spatial information application, panning a 2-D map. The proposed head tracking scheme uses head pointing to control the direction of panning. The head tracking control is evaluated against the traditional control methods of the mouse and touchpad, showing a significant performance increase over the touchpad and comparable performance to the mouse, despite limited practice with head tracking.
Matt Derry: Evaluating Head Gestures for Panning 2-D Spatial Information
New, often free, spatial information applications such as mapping tools, topological imaging, and geographic information systems are becoming increasingly available to the average computer user. These systems, which were once available only to government, scholastic, and corporate institutions with highly skilled operators, are driving a need for new and innovative ways for the average user to navigate and control spatial information intuitively, accurately, and efficiently. Gestures provide a method of control that is well suited to navigating the large datasets often associated with spatial information applications. Several different types of gestures and different applications that navigate spatial data are examined. This leads to the introduction of a system that uses a visual head tracking scheme for controlling of the most common navigation action in the most common type of spatial information application, panning a 2-D map. The proposed head tracking scheme uses head pointing to control the direction of panning. The head tracking control is evaluated against the traditional control methods of the mouse and touchpad, showing a significant performance increase over the touchpad and comparable performance to the mouse, despite limited practice with head tracking.
Class News as RSS Feed
01/04/10 16:59
If you want to, you can follow theses class updates through an RSS feed. Since this is unlikely to be of interest to anybody outside this class, I’m not planning on making it available through one of the popular RSS channels. Let me know if you think that there would be any benefits in doing so.