Identifying Inference Rules for Automatic Metadata Generation from Pre-existing Metadata of Related Resources

  • Merkourios Margaritopoulos
  • Isabella Kotini
  • Athanasios Manitsaris
  • Ioannis Mavridis

Manual indexing of learning resources according to metadata standards is a laborious task. The introduction of automatic metadata generation methods is a developing research field with diverse approaches, which appears as an option having the advantage of the economy of work for not having to manually create metadata. In this paper, a methodology for automatic generation of metadata which exploits relations between resources to be described is introduced and examples and empirical data on the application of the methodology to the LOM (Learning Object Metadata) standard are presented. The methodology comprises the execution of consecutive steps of actions aiming at identifying inference rules for automatic generation of a resource's metadata based on pre-existing metadata of its related resources.


Inference Rule Related Resource Manual Indexing Metadata Standard Implicit Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bourda Y, Doan B-L, Kekhia W (2002) A semi-automatic tool for the indexation of learning objects. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (pp. 190–191). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brase J, Painter M, Nejdl W (2003) Completion axioms for learning object metadata -Towards a formal description of LOM. In 3rd international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT). Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cardinaels K, Meire M, Duval E (2005) Automating metadata generation: the simple indexing interface. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2002) DCMI Metadata Terms Accessed 15 March 2007.
  5. 5.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2005) Using Dublin Core — The Elements Accessed 15 March 2007.
  6. 6.
    Doan B-L, Bourda Y (2005) Defining several ontologies to enhance the expressive power of queries. In volume 143 of CEUR, workshop Proceedings, on Interoperability of web-based Educational Systems, held in conjunction with WWW'05 conference, Chiba, Japan, Technical University of Aachen (RWTH).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duval E (2001) Metadata Standards: What, Who & Why? Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 7, no 7, 2001, pp. 591–601.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duval E, Hodgins W (2004) Making metadata go away - hiding everything but the benefits. In DC-2004: Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E-Learning Consortium (2003) Making sense of learning specifications and standards: A decision's maker's guide to their adoption (2e). The Masie Centre. standards/s3-2nd-edition.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2007.
  10. 10.
    Engelhardt M et al (2006) Reasoning about eLearning Multimedia Objects. In J. Van Ossenbruggen, G. Stamou, R. Troncy, V. Tzouvaras (Ed.) Proc. of WWW 2006, Intern. Workshop on Semantic Web Annotations for Multimedia (SWAMM).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friesen N (2004) International LOM Survey: Report (Draft). 01/LOM_Survey_Report2.doc. Accessed 15 March 2007.
  12. 12.
    Greenberg J, Spurgin K, Crystal A (2005) AMeGA (Automatic Metadata Generation Applications) Project, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenberg J, Spurgin, K, Crystal A (2006) Functionalities for Automatic-Metadata Generation Applications: A Survey of Metadata Experts' Opinions. International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hatala M, Richards G (2003) Value-added metatagging: Ontology and rule based methods for smarter metadata. In RuleML, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horton W, Horton K (2003) E-learning Tools and Technologies. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IEEE. 1484.12.1 (2002) Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata. Learning Technology Standards Committee of the IEEE. LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2007.
  17. 17.
    Liddy E D et al (2002) Automatic metadata generation & evaluation. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Margaritopoulos M, Manitsaris A, Mavridis I (2007) On the Identification of Inference Rules for Automatic Metadata Generation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research (CD-ROM), Ionian Academy, Corfu, Greece.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motelet O (2005) Relation-based heuristic diffusion framework for LOM generation. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education AIED 2005 - Young Researcher Track, Amsterdam, Holland.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Najjar J, Ternier S, Duval E (2003) The Actual Use of Metadata in ARIADNE: an Empirical Analysis. In Proceedings of ARIADNE Conference 2003.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sicilia M A et al (2005) Complete metadata records in learning object repositories: some evidence and requirements. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1(4), pp. 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steinmetz R, Seeberg C (2003) Meta-Information for Multimedia eLearning. Computer science in perspective, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied InformaticsUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations