Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 199–236 | Cite as

Unifying and targeting cultural activities via events modelling and profiling

  • Sam Coppens
  • Erik MannensEmail author
  • Toon De Pessemier
  • Kristof Geebelen
  • Hendrik Dacquin
  • Davy Van Deursen
  • Rik Van de Walle


Today, people have only limited, valuable spare time at their hands which they want to fill in as good as possible according to their interests. At the same time, cultural institutions are trying to attract interested communities to their carefully planned cultural programs. To distribute these cultural events to the right people, we developed a framework that will aggregate, enrich, recommend and distribute these events as targeted as possible. The aggregated events are published as Linked Open Data using an RDF/OWL representation of the EventsML-G2 standard. These event items are categorised and enriched via smart indexing and linked open datasets available on the Web of data. For recommending the events to the end-user, a global profile of the end-user is automatically constructed by aggregating his profile information from all user communities the user trusts and is registered to. This way, the recommendations take profile information into account from different communities, which has a detrimental effect on the recommendations. As such, the ultimate goal is to provide an open, user-friendly recommendation platform that harnesses the end-user with a tool to access useful event information that goes beyond basic information retrieval. At the same time, we provide the (inter)national cultural community with standardised mechanisms to describe/distribute event and profile information.


Event modelling Profiling Recommendation 



The research activities that have been described in this paper were funded by Ghent University, K.U. Leuven, VRT-medialab, Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology (IBBT) through the CUPID-project (50% co-funded by industrial partners), the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT), the Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO-Flanders), and the European Union.


  1. 1.
    Beckett D (ed) (2004) RDF/XML syntax specification (revised). W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  2. 2.
    Berglund A (ed) (2006) Extensible stylesheet language (XSL)—version 1.1. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  3. 3.
    Bhupendra K (2009) Hyper connectivity addiction: facebook eats 6 billion man minutes every day. Available at
  4. 4.
    Bizer C, Heath T, Idehen K, Berners-Lee T (2008) Linked data on the web. In: Proceedings of the 17th international world wide web conference—LDOW workshop, Beijing, China, pp 1265–1266Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bray T, Paoli J, Sperberg-McQueen C, Maler E, Yergeau F (eds) (2006) Extensible markup language (XML) 1.0, 4th edn. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  6. 6.
    Breese J, Heckerman D, Kadie C (1998) Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 14th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Madison, USA, pp 43–52Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brickley D (ed) (2004) RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  8. 8.
    Centre for Digital Music—University of London: The Event Ontology (2007) Available at
  9. 9.
    Chinnici R, Moreau JJ, Ryman A, Weerawarana S (eds) (2007) Web services description language (WSDL) version 2.0. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  10. 10.
    Clark J (ed) (1999) XSL transformations (XSLT)—version 1.0. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  11. 11.
    Corcoran S (2009) Using social applications in ad campaigns. Available at,7211,54050,00.html
  12. 12.
    Cornelis C, Guo X, Lu J, Zhang G (1998) Clustering methods for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence—workshop on recommendation systems, Madison, USA, pp 114–129Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes C, Massa P, Avesani P, Cunningham P (2002) An on-line evaluation framework for recommender systems. In: In workshop on personalization and recommendation in e-commerce. Malaga. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herlocker J, Konstan J, Borchers A, Riedl J (1999) An algorithmic framework for performing collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Berkeley, USA, pp 230–237Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang Z, Zeng D, Chen H (2004) A link analysis approach to recommendation with sparse data. In: AMCIS 2004: americas conference on information systems, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Council of Museums / ICOMs International Committee for Documentation: Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (2009) Available at
  17. 17.
    International Press Telecommunications Council: EventsML-G2 Specification—version 1.1 (2009) Available at
  18. 18.
    International Press Telecommunications Council: NewsML-G2 Specification—version 2.2 (2009) Available at
  19. 19.
    International Press Telecommunications Council: SportsML-G2 Specification—version 2.0 (2009) Available at
  20. 20.
    Internet Engineering Task Force: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification—iCalendar (2009) Available at
  21. 21.
    Iskold A (2004) The Art, science and business of recommendation engines. Available at
  22. 22.
    Kaneiwa K, Iwazume M, Fukuda K (2007) An upper ontology for event classifications and relations. Lect Notes Comput Sci – Adv Artif Intell 4830:394–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karypis G (2001) Evaluation of item-based top-N recommendation algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on information and knowledge management, Atlanta, USA, pp 247–254Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linden G, Smith B, York J (2003) recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Comput 7(1):76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    LinkingOpenData (W3C SWEO Community Project)—Centre for Digital Music: Audioscrobbler RDF Service (2007) Available at
  26. 26.
    McGuinness D, van Harmelen F (eds) (2004) OWL web ontology language: overview. W3C Recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at
  27. 27.
    Nack F (2003) Capturing experience: a matter of contextualising events. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMM workshop on experiential telepresence conference, New York, USA, pp 53–64Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OASIS Technical Committee: WS-BPEL, Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0 (2007) Available at
  29. 29.
    O’Reilly T (2005) What is web 2.0—design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Available at
  30. 30.
    Papagelis M, Plexousakis D, Kutsuras T (2005) Alleviating the sparsity problem of collaborative filtering using trust inferences. Lect Notes Comput Sci – Trust Manage 3477:224–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sarwar B, Karypis G, Konstan J, Riedl J (2000) Analysis of recommendation algorithms for e-commerce. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on electronic commerce, Minneapolis, USA, pp 158–167Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scherp Ansgar FTSC, Staab S (2009) F–a model of events based on the foundational ontology dolce+DnS ultralight. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on knowledge capture, California, USA, pp 137–144Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Segaran T (2007) Programming collective intelligence. O’ReillyGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shaw R, Troncy R, Hardman L (2009) LODE: linking open descriptions of events. In: Proceedings of the 4th international asian semantic web conference, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Westermann U, Jain R (2007) Toward a common event model for multimedia applications. IEEE Multimed 14(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sam Coppens
    • 1
  • Erik Mannens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Toon De Pessemier
    • 2
  • Kristof Geebelen
    • 3
  • Hendrik Dacquin
    • 4
  • Davy Van Deursen
    • 1
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.ELIS – Multimedia LabGhent University – IBBTGhentBelgium
  2. 2.INTEC – WiCaGhent University – IBBTGhentBelgium
  3. 3.DistrinetK.U. Leuven – IBBTLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.VRT-medialabVRTBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations