Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Presenting Structured Text Retrieval Results

  • Jaap Kamps
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_317

Synonyms

Structured text retrieval tasks

Definition

Presenting structured text retrieval results refers to the fact that, in structured text retrieval, results are not independent and a judgment on their relevance needs to take their presentation into account. For example, HTML/XML/SGML documents contain a range of nested sub-trees that are fully contained in their ancestor elements. As a result, structured text retrieval should make explicit the assumptions on how the retrieval results are to be presented. Four of the main assumptions to be addressed are the following. First, the unit of retrieval assumption: is there a designated retrieval unit (such as the document or root node of the structured document) or can every sub-tree be retrieved in principle? Second, the overlap assumption: may retrieval results contain text or content already part of other retrieval results (such as a full article and one of its individual paragraphs)? Third, the contextassumption: can results from the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Clarke C, Kamps J, Lalmas M. INEX 2006 retrieval task and result submission specification. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2006. p. 381–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke CLA, Kamps J, Lalmas M. INEX 2007 retrieval task and result submission format. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2007. p. 445–53.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Focus. Focussed retrieval of structured documents – A Large Experimental Study. 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuhr N. A probabilistic framework for vague queries and imprecise information in databases. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 1990. p. 696–707.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gövert N, Kazai G. Overview of the INitiative for the Evaluation of XML retrieval (INEX) 2002. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2003. p. 1–17.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hearst MA. User interfaces and visualization, Chapter X. In: Modern information retrieval. New York: ACM. 1999. p. 257–324.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    INEX. INitiative for the evaluation of XML retrieval. 2007. http://inex.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de/.
  8. 8.
    Jones KS. What’s the value of TREC – is there a gap to jump or a chasm to bridge? SIGIR Forum. 2006;40(1):10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kazai G, Lalmas M, Gövert N, Malik S. INEX’03 retrieval task and result submission specification. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2003. p. 200–3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazai G, Lalmas M, Reid J. Construction of a test collection for the focussed retrieval of structured documents. In: Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on IR Research; 2003. p. 88–103.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lalmas M, Kazai G. INEX 2005 retrieval task and result submission specification. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2005. p. 385–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lalmas M, Malik S. INEX 2004 retrieval task and result submission specification. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2004. p. 237–40.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malik S, Klas C-P, Fuhr N, Larsen B, Tombros A. Designing a user interface for interactive retrieval of structured documents – lessons learned from the INEX interactive track. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries; 2006. p. 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salton G, Allan J, Buckley C. Approaches to passage retrieval in full text information systems. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; 1993. p. 49–58.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sigurbjörnsson B. Focused information access using XML element retrieval. SIKS dissertation series 2006–2028, University of Amsterdam. 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szlávik Z, Tombros A, Lalmas M. Feature- and query-based table of contents generation for XML documents. In: Proceedings of the 29th European Conference on IR Research; 2007. p. 456–67.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tombros A, Larsen B, Malik S. The interactive track at INEX 2004. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2004. p. 410–23.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trotman A, Geva S, Kamps J, editors. In: Proceedings of the SIGIR 2007 Workshop on Focused Retrieval; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trotman A, Pharo N, Lehtonen M. XML-IR users and use cases. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop of the Initiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval; 2006. p. 400–12.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilkinson R. Effective retrieval of structured documents. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; 1994. p. 311–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Section editors and affiliations

  • Jaap Kamps
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands