16.621 conference, meeting, workshop

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 04:22:48 EDT

  • Next message: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 16, No. 621.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                         Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu

       [1] From: CIRAS <ciras@nus.edu.sg> (30)
             Subject: CIRAS - Singapore 2003 CFP

       [2] From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org> (29)
             Subject: NINCH COPYRIGHT TM: Creating Museum IP Policy:
                     Portland, Oregon, May 22

       [3] From: "J. Stephen Downie" <jdownie@uiuc.edu> (145)
             Subject: CFP: SIGIR 2003: Workshop on the Evaluation of Music
                     Information Retrieval (MIR) Systems

             Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:16:59 +0100
             From: CIRAS <ciras@nus.edu.sg>
             Subject: CIRAS - Singapore 2003 CFP

    (Apologies, if you have received this CFP before.)
    2nd Int. Conference on Computational Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous
    Systems 15-18 December 2003, Singapore

    [http://ciras.nus.edu.sg] [ciras@nus.edu.sg]
    Online Paper Submission: [http://act.ee.nus.edu.sg/ciras2003/]

    Important Dates
        Submission: 1 July 2003
        Acceptance: 15 August 2003
        Final Submission: 15 September 2003

    Organized by: Centre for Intelligent Control, National Univ. of Singapore
    Co-sponsored by:
            IEEE SMC Society Singapore Chapter
            IEEE R&A Society Singapore Chapter
    Supported by: Lee Foundation

    The Centre for Intelligent Control, National University of Singapore is
    pleased to announce that the 2nd International conference on Computational
    Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous Systems (CIRAS 2003) is planned in
    December 2003 in Singapore. The CIRAS'2001 was successfully held at the
    National University of Singapore in November 2001. Prof. Zadeh L. A. and
    Prof. Xin Yao delivered the keynote addresses at CIRAS'2001.

    The Intelligence in automation systems is increasingly becoming a key and
    important technology to be harnessed for enhancing productivity and
    economic returns. CIRAS2003 will focus on research directions that are
    broadly covered by the fields, Computational Intelligence (CI), Robotics
    and Autonomous Systems. CIRAS is intended to provide a common platform for
    knowledge dissemination among researchers working in related areas. CIRAS
    invites submissions from all areas related to, but not limited to,
    Computational Intelligence, Robotics and Autonomous Systems.

    [material deleted]

             Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:17:33 +0100
             From: NINCH-ANNOUNCE <david@ninch.org>
             Subject: NINCH COPYRIGHT TM: Creating Museum IP Policy: Portland,
    Oregon, May 22

    News on Networking Cultural Heritage Resources
    from across the Community
    April 14, 2003


                                    REGISTRATION STILL OPEN
                           (Advance Registration Closes April 18)

                   Creating Museum IP Policy in a Digital World

                  Co-sponsored by the Canadian Heritage Information Network
                and the Intellectual Property Section of the Oregon State Bar

              at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Museums

                   Doubletree Hotel Portland Lloyd Center, Portland, Oregon
                                  Thursday May 22, 9am-4pm
                             Registration Required with AAM: $75
                        [Workshop 64: Intellectual Property Workshop]

                  * Advance Registrations Must Be Received By April 18 *
                 After April 18, Registrations (if available) only on-site

                                         * * * *

    In a world where many content-providers are worried about digital
    misappropriation of material, and users are concerned about inaccessible,
    expensive or low-grade resources, how important is it for museums to have
    clear and fair intellectual property policy to monitor the use and
    distribution of digital content and how do they go about creating it?
    "Creating IP Policy in Museums," the subject of this NINCH Copyright Town
    Meeting, will attempt to answer these questions.

    [material deleted]

             Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:18:24 +0100
             From: "J. Stephen Downie" <jdownie@uiuc.edu>
             Subject: CFP: SIGIR 2003: Workshop on the Evaluation of Music
    Information Retrieval (MIR) Systems

    Greetings colleagues:

    This CFP is intended to encourage all that have an interest in Music
    Retrieval and Music Digital Library research to consider submitting to, and/or
    participating in, the upcoming SIGIR 2003: Workshop on the Evaluation of Music
    Information Retrieval (MIR) Systems, August 1, 2003, Toronto, Canada.

    Please look at the more detailed workshop information page for more detailed
    submission and expression of interest information:

    This workshop is designed to enhance the important and significant work being
    done by the Music Information Retrieval (MIR) research community by
    providing an
    opportunity for the community to move forward on the establishment of
    sorely-needed evaluation tools. This proposal builds upon the ongoing efforts
    being made to establish TREC-like and other comprehensive evaluation paradigms
    within the MIR research community.

    The principal workshop themes are based upon expert opinion garnered from
    members of the Information Retrieval (IR), Music Digital Library (MDL) and MIR
    communities with regard to the construction and implementation of
    valid evaluation frameworks. As part of the "MIR/MDL Evaluation Frameworks
    Project" (http://music-ir.org/evaluation), two recently held meetings form the
    foundation upon which this workshop is grounded:

    "The Workshop on the Creation of Standardized Test Collections, Tasks, and
    Metrics for Music Information Retrieval (MIR) and Music Digital Library (MDL)
    Evaluation" was held at the Second Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL
    2002) in July of 2002(http://www.ohsu.edu/jcdl). "The Panel on Music
    Retrieval Evaluation Frameworks" held in Paris, FR, 17 October 2002, as part of
    the 3rd International Conference on Music InformationRetrieval (ISMIR 2002)
    (http://ismir2002.ircam.fr).The findings made at each of the prior meetings
    been collected in successive editions of "The MIR/MDL Evaluation White Paper
    Collection." See http://music-ir.org/evaluation for the most recent edition.

    Information about SIGIR 2003: http://www.sigir2003.org/

    Special thanks to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for its support of the
    "MIR/MDL Evalution Frameworks Project".

    If you have any comments, suggestions or questions please contact me, J.
    Downie, at jdownie@uiuc.edu.

    Workshop Framework:
    Two classes of participants are envisioned: 1) presenters; and 2) audience

    Presenters will submit written briefing documents (i.e., White Papers) prior to
    the workshop. I plan on including these briefing documents in the growing
    collection at http://music-ir.org/evaluation. Based upon prior experience,
    will be 8 to 12 formal presenters. Audience members, while not acting as formal
    presenters, will be encourage to respond to the presentations as active debate
    on recommendations being put forward is a key goal of the workshop.

    Together, the presenters and the audience members will be asked at the
    conclusion of the workshop to highlight central recommendations for the
    advancement of MIR evaluation with regard to TREC-like and other evaluation
    paradigms for MIR research. These recommendations will also be presented to the
    MIR and IR communities via http://music-ir.org/evaluation .

    Major Workshop Themes:
    Major general themes to be addressed in the workshop include:
    --How do we adequately comprehend the complex nature of music information so
    that we can properly construct our evaluation recommendations?
    --How do we adequately capture the complex nature of music queries so proposed
    experiments and protocols are well-grounded in reality?
    --How do we deal with the "relevance" problem in the MIR context (i.e., What
    does "relevance" really mean in the MIR context?)?
    --How do we continue to the expansion of a comprehensive collection of music
    materials to be used in evaluation experiments?
    --How do we manage the interplay between TREC-like and other potential
    evaluation paradigms?
    --How do we integrate the evaluation of MIR systems with the larger
    framework of
    MIR evaluation (i.e., What aspects are held in common and what are unique
    to MIR?)?
    --Further prompting questions/themes can be found at

    To address these majors themes, participants will be prompted to provide
    recommendations and commentary on specific sub-components of the themes. For
    example, a non-exclusive list of possible presentations includes
    suggestions and
    commentary on:
    --How best to ground evaluation methods in real-world requirements.
    --How to facilitate the creation of data-rich query records that are both
    grounded in real-world requirements and neutral with respect to retrieval
    technique(s) being examined.
    --How the possible adoption, and subsequent validation, of a "reasonable
    approach to "relevance" assessment might address the MIR "relevance" problem.
    --How to develop new models and theories of "relevance" in the MIR context.
    --How to evaluate the utility, within the MIR context, of already-established
    evaluation metrics (e.g., precision and recall, etc.).
    --How to support the ongoing acquisition of music information (audio, symbolic
    and metadata) to enhance the development of a secure, yet accessible, research
    environment that allows researchers to remotely participate in the use of the
    large-scale testbed collection.

    Open Workshop Questions and Topics:

    The following, non-exclusive (nor all-encompassing) list of open
    questions should help you understand just a few of the many possible
    paper and discussion topics to be tackled at the Workshop:

    --As a music librarian, are there issues that evaluation standards must
    address for their results to be credible? Do you know of possible
    collections that might form the basis of a test collection? What prior
    research should we be considering?

    --As a musicologist, what things need examination that are possibly
    being overlooked?

    --As a digital library (DL) developer, what standards for evaluation
    should we borrow from the traditional DL community? Any perils or pitfalls that
    we should consider?

    --As an audio engineer, what do you need to test your approaches? What
    methods have worked in other contexts that might or might not work in
    the MIR/MDL contexts?

    --As an information retrieval specialist, what lessons have you learned
    about other traditional IR evaluation frameworks? Any suggestions about
    what to avoid or consider as we build our MIR/MDL evaluation frameworks
    from "scratch"?

    --As an intellectual property expert, what rights and responsibilities
    will we have as we strive to build and distribute our test collections?

    --As an interface/human computer interaction (HCI) expert, what tests
    should we consider to validate our many different types of interfaces?

    --As a business person, what format of results will help you make
    selection decisions? Are their business research models and methods that
    should be considered?

    --As a computer scientist, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the
    CS approach to validation in the MIR/MDL context? etc.

    These are just a few of the possible questions/topics that will be
    addressed. The underlying questions are:

    1.How do we determine, and then appropriately classify, the tasks
    that should make up the legitimate purviews of the MIR/MDL domains?
    2.What do we mean by "success"? What do we mean by "failure"?
    3.How will we decide that one MIR/MDL approach works better than
    4.How do we best decide which MIR/MDL approach is best suited for a
    particular task?

    Please forward this to anyone you think might be interested.

    Cheers, and thanks.
    J. Stephen Downie

         "Research funding makes the world a better place"
    J. Stephen Downie, PhD
    Assistant Professor,
    Graduate School of Library and Information Science; and,
    Fellow, National Center for Supercomputing Applications (2000-01)
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    (217) 351-5037

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 04:29:06 EDT