Advertisement

A Methodology for Resolving Heterogeneity and Interdependence in Data Analytics

  • Han Han
  • Yunwei Zhao
  • Can WangEmail author
  • Min Shu
  • Tao Peng
  • Chi-Hung Chi
  • Yonghong Yu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11888)

Abstract

The big data analytics achieves wide application in a number of areas due to its capability in uncovering hidden patterns, correlations and insights through integrating multiple data sources. However, the interdependence and heterogeneity features of these data sources pose a big challenge in managing these data sources to support “last mile” analytics in decision making and value co-creation which are usually with multiple perspectives and at multiple granularities. In this paper, we propose a unified knowledge representation framework, namely, Cyber-Entity (Cyber-E) modeling, to capture and formalize selected behaviors of real entities in both the social and physical worlds to the cyber analytic space. Its special features include not only the stateful, intra- properties of a Cyber-E, but also the inter-relationship and dependence among them. A grouping mechanism, called Cyber-G, is also introduced to support flexible granularity adjustment in the knowledge management. It supports rapid on-demand self-service analytics. An illustrating example of applying this approach in academic research community is given, followed by a case study of two top conferences in service computing area– ICSOC and ICWS– to illustrate the effectiveness and potentials of our approach.

Keywords

Heterogeneity and inter-dependence Big data analytics Knowledge representation 

References

  1. 1.
    Lustig, I., Dietrich, B., et al.: The analytics journey. Analytics Mag. (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rutkowski, L.: Computational Intelligence: Methods and Techniques, 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76288-1CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller, G.: Social scientists wade into the tweet stream. Science 333(6051), 1814–1815 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johan, B., Huina, M.: Twitter mood as a stock market predictor. IEEE Comput. 44(10), 91–94 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kenny, D.A., Cook, W.L.: Dyadic Data Analysis. The Guilford Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brachman, R., Levesque, H.: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, D., Guo, B., Yu, Z.: The emergence of social and community intelligence. IEEE Comput. 44(7), 21–28 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergstrom, C.: Eigenfactor: measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. College Res. Libr. News 68(5), 314–316 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheang, B., Chu, S., et al.: A multidimensional approach to evaluating management journals: refining pagerank via the differentiation of citation types and identifying the roles that management journals play. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 65(12), 2581–2591 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M.A., et al.: Journal status. Scientometrics 69(3), 669–687 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F.J., et al.: h-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J. Inf. 3(4), 273–289 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegon, F.: Relationship between downloads and citations at journal and paper levels, and the influence of language. Scientometrics 101(2), 1043–1065 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aduku, K.J., ThelWall, M., et al.: Do Mendeley reader counts reflect the scholarly impact of conference papers? An investigation of computer science and engineering. Scientometrics 112(1), 1–9 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhuang, Z., Elmacioglu, E., et al.: Measuring conference quality by mining program committee characteristics. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yan, E., Ding, Y.: Discovering author impact: a PageRank perspective. Inf. Process. Manage. 47(1), 125–134 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Egghe, L.: Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69(1), 131–152 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma, N., Guan, J., et al.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis. Inf. Process. Manage. 44(2), 800–810 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yan, E., Ding, Y., et al.: P-rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62(3), 467–477 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mu, D., Guo, L., et al.: Query-focused personalized citation recommendation with mutually reinforced rankingk. IEEE Access, 3107–3119 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, Z., Huang, H., et al.: Tri-rank: an authority ranking framework in heterogeneous academic networks by mutual reinforce. In: 2014 IEEE 26th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 493–500 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Moya-Anegón, F.: A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: the SJR2 indicator. J. Inf. 6(4), 674–688 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Han Han
    • 1
  • Yunwei Zhao
    • 1
  • Can Wang
    • 2
    Email author
  • Min Shu
    • 1
  • Tao Peng
    • 3
  • Chi-Hung Chi
    • 4
  • Yonghong Yu
    • 5
  1. 1.CNCERT/CCBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of ICTGriffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  3. 3.Dongguan University of TechnologyDongguanChina
  4. 4.CSIROHobartAustralia
  5. 5.Nanjing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations