Enabling Reputation Interoperabilitythrough Semantic TechnologiesRehab AlnemrHPI Research SchoolChair “Internet Technologi...
Approaches?                                                                     Trust Management2    Trust models      ■ s...
Concepts?                                                             Reputation Approach3    ■ Reputation Target      use...
Concepts?                                                                Reputation Approach4    ■ Reputation Target      ...
Where…                                                                     Rep. Approach5                       Reputation...
…a typical buying decision6
…a typical buying decision7
…a typical buying decision8
…a typical buying decision9
Ratings and Reviews                                                                              Online Markets10     ■ Af...
Ratings in Online Markets                                                                                        Online Ma...
Our User Studies12                         Online Survey + interviews:             Online Chocolate Store                 ...
User Survey:     http://www.kwiksurveys.com?s=ILNING_865460b6                                                    Study 113
User Survey:     http://www.kwiksurveys.com?s=ILNING_865460b6                                                    Study 114
Results15                               eBay                       Rating Frequency                                 (numbe...
Results16                               eBay                       Rating Frequency                                 (numbe...
Results: comparison bet. Rating styles17     Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
Results: comparison bet. Rating styles18               no ”reviews” option available                users explicitly aske...
What does this mean?                                                                      Analysis19      ■ Confusion in i...
ChocStore                                                              Study 220      ■ Online Chocolate Store        ■ Fo...
21
Online Chocolate Store                                                                     Objectives22      ■ How many at...
Online Chocolate Store                                                                                  Results23      ■ T...
What does this mean?                                                                           Analysis24          ■ Users...
So?                                                                        Discussion25     ■ A more aware user           ...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                                                            No co...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                                       Single Rating27          ■...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                                   Different perceptions28       ...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                                      Different perceptions29    ...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                            No portability30     Reputation.Inter...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                                   No portability31              ...
Why Rating is not enough?                                                                        No portability32         ...
Ontologies                                                                  Why Ontologies?33      Ontologies         Conc...
Competency Questions                                                                    Reputation Requirements34        ...
Cont. Competency Questions                                                                   Reputation Requirements35    ...
Reputation Object Model                                                                                   Representation36...
Reputation Object Ontology                                                            RO Ontology37     Reputation.Interop...
Reputation Object Ontology                                                            RO Ontology38     Reputation.Interop...
Reputation Object Ontology                                                            RO Ontology39     Reputation.Interop...
Reputation Object Ontology                                                            RO Ontology40     Reputation.Interop...
Which Technology?                                                                       Used Technology41       ■ Developi...
What is Semantic Web?                                                            Semantic Technologies42     ■ extension o...
…define and structure                                                                  Semantic Technologies43            ...
RO Ontology: OWL                                                                RO Ontology44     ■ Developed using Protég...
Implementation: Library                                                            RO Ontology45     Reputation.Interopera...
Using Semantic Technologies                                                                              Goals46         ...
A seller RO in e-Markets                                                                       Applications47          ■ U...
Usage Control in E-Markets                                                                       Applications48        ■ U...
Rule-based Reputation Systems                                                                          Applications49     ...
Cloud Provider Selection                                                                     Applications50       ■ Select...
Personalized News Network38     ■ Real Experience                     We want to stay informed with real trusted news    ...
Personalized News Network38     ■ Real Experience                     We want to stay informed with real trusted news    ...
Personalized News Network38     ■ Real Experience                     We want to stay informed with real trusted news    ...
Personalized News Network38     ■ Real Experience                     We want to stay informed with real trusted news    ...
Thank YouRehab Alnemr(rehab.alnemr@hpi.uni-potsdam.de)
Alnemr tm symp-slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Alnemr tm symp-slides

213

Published on

Presentation at the "Trust Management Symposium in HPI: Industry Meets academia"

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
213
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • -So the targets of reputation statements can be…. As you can see it can be “I like” button, or “Stars” in another community-- Context: is a category in which this reputation is earned.A high ranking for a user of Yahoo! Chess doesn't really tell you whether you should buy something from that user on eBay, but it might tell you something about how committed the user is to board gaming tournaments.
  • -So the targets of reputation statements can be…. As you can see it can be “I like” button, or “Stars” in another community-- Context: is a category in which this reputation is earned.A high ranking for a user of Yahoo! Chess doesn't really tell you whether you should buy something from that user on eBay, but it might tell you something about how committed the user is to board gaming tournaments.
  • no obvious distinction -at the rating page- of what exactly being rated or reviewed.
  • no obvious distinction -at the rating page- of what exactly being rated or reviewed.
  • no obvious distinction -at the rating page- of what exactly being rated or reviewed.
  • no obvious distinction -at the rating page- of what exactly being rated or reviewed.
  • no obvious distinction -at the rating page- of what exactly being rated or reviewed.
  • Objectiveshow users perceive reputationDoes users use more information than the usual stars and reviews? Which attributes do they actually use to decide on a seller?compare between ratings representations does detailed-ratings style confirm with the social notion more than single-ratings style? frequency and size of cooperation between users
  • Objectiveshow users perceive reputationDoes users use more information than the usual stars and reviews? Which attributes do they actually use to decide on a seller?compare between ratings representations does detailed-ratings style confirm with the social notion more than single-ratings style? frequency and size of cooperation between users
  • The form gave them the opportunity to express their perception of rating on different levels.
  • Excluding context from reputation value, this can be illustrated with an e-market example, where a buyer wants to buy a TV set frpm an e-shop, the seller hands the product to a delivery service, which delays the package.As a result the customer is not satisfied and is giving the seller a bad reviewRating used books is the rating for the book itself -> the user liked what he reador the quality of the book ->was new and good printing) or the service provided by Amazon for example -> offering the book, price, delivery, payment method, etc.Such problem raised legal hassles: eBay (California, Grace vs. eBay) Amazon (cases in UK and USA)reason: rating ambiguity
  • We have done an analysis on some of communities that use Reputation and we found out that each one has:…slide Slide - In that sense, reputation was modeled in a simple way. Although some of these models are based on complicated mathematical calculations, they still do not reflect the real cognitive nature of reputation because they do not represent all the parameters that affect it.
  • We have done an analysis on some of communities that use Reputation and we found out that each one has:…slide Slide - In that sense, reputation was modeled in a simple way. Although some of these models are based on complicated mathematical calculations, they still do not reflect the real cognitive nature of reputation because they do not represent all the parameters that affect it.
  • We have done an analysis on some of communities that use Reputation and we found out that each one has:…slide Slide - In that sense, reputation was modeled in a simple way. Although some of these models are based on complicated mathematical calculations, they still do not reflect the real cognitive nature of reputation because they do not represent all the parameters that affect it.
  • - Following the methodology of Gruninger for ontology development we construct a set of comp. questions- Competency Questions: These questions act as requirements in the form of queries that an ontology should be able to answer.
  • In our previous work and in this one, we show our data model that focus on facilitating the standardization of reputation information: Reputation Object model The model is based on the idea of:Reputation is the notion of profiling an entity’s performance In this model we: Uses more information about the domain and the contextsand relevant quality criteria in which a reputation can be earnedUsing this information, reputation is represented differentlyas a developed reputationobjectThe Reputation Object profiles an entity’s performance and has information aboutContexts in the domain in which a reputation can be earnedRatings values given (or reviews or opinions) Computation reputation functions that is used to aggregate the ratingsHow this rating is collected
  • - The model structure (in the Ontology Figure) contains a description of how this value is collected (e.g. by community ratings or moni- toring service), the computation function (for this criterion) used to aggregate the values each time a new one is entered, and a history list (previous values dated back to a certain time slot). Our model describes a more complex, yet easy to comprehend, reputation representation.
  • - The model structure (in the Ontology Figure) contains a description of how this value is collected (e.g. by community ratings or moni- toring service), the computation function (for this criterion) used to aggregate the values each time a new one is entered, and a history list (previous values dated back to a certain time slot). Our model describes a more complex, yet easy to comprehend, reputation representation.
  • - The model structure (in the Ontology Figure) contains a description of how this value is collected (e.g. by community ratings or moni- toring service), the computation function (for this criterion) used to aggregate the values each time a new one is entered, and a history list (previous values dated back to a certain time slot). Our model describes a more complex, yet easy to comprehend, reputation representation.
  • - The model structure (in the Ontology Figure) contains a description of how this value is collected (e.g. by community ratings or moni- toring service), the computation function (for this criterion) used to aggregate the values each time a new one is entered, and a history list (previous values dated back to a certain time slot). Our model describes a more complex, yet easy to comprehend, reputation representation.
  • In RDF everything is a resource “classes” are also resources, but……they are also a collection of possible resources (i.e., “individuals”)“fiction”, “novel”, …Relationships are defined among classes and resources:“typing”: an individual belongs to a specific class “«The Glass Palace» is a novel”to be more precise: “«http://.../000651409X» is a novel”“subclassing”: all instances of one are also the instances of the other (“every novel is a fiction”)Linked open data: data are linked from one source to the other by defining relations between them, are self-describing and open -> enables the discovery of new data sources
  • How to get RDF data: GRDL, RDFa, microformatsBy adding some “meta” information, the same source can be reused for, eg, data integration, better mashups, etctypical example: your personal information, like address, should be readable for humans andprocessable by machinesTwo solutions have emerged:extract the structure from the page and convert the content into RDFadd RDF statements directly into XHTML via RDFaRDFa extends (X)HTML a bit by:defining general attributes to add metadata to any elements provides an almost complete “serialization” of RDF in XHTML
  • - For declarative processing of the semantic reputation objects we make use of rules
  • Alnemr tm symp-slides

    1. 1. Enabling Reputation Interoperabilitythrough Semantic TechnologiesRehab AlnemrHPI Research SchoolChair “Internet Technologies and Systems”of Prof. Dr. ChristophMeinel
    2. 2. Approaches? Trust Management2 Trust models ■ serve as a decision criterion for an agent to engage in activities One of the approaches ■ Reputation-based approach □ use reputation as a base for trust □ closed domains: each has its own method to query, store, aggregate, infer, interpret and represent reputation □ Used in: – Web communities (e-Markets, blogs, social networks) – Services – Software agents Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    3. 3. Concepts? Reputation Approach3 ■ Reputation Target users, movies, products, blog posts, tags, companies, services, software agents, and IP addresses ■ Reputation Model all of the reputation statements, events, and processes for a particular context ■ Reputation Context the relevant category for a specific reputation Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    4. 4. Concepts? Reputation Approach4 ■ Reputation Target users, movies, products, blog posts, tags, companies, services, software agents, and IPComputation Function  addresses  Communication Model ■ Reputation Model all of the reputation statements, events, and processes for a particular  Participants context  Resources ■ Reputation Context  Representation Model the relevant category for a specific reputation  Storage  Functionalities and Applications Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    5. 5. Where… Rep. Approach5 Reputation of Reputation of users service providers In Service-oriented Arch. Reputation of Reputation of business domains services Social/entertain Slashdot E-Markets ment News Online Reputation Systems Opinion & Business/Jobs Activities network
    6. 6. …a typical buying decision6
    7. 7. …a typical buying decision7
    8. 8. …a typical buying decision8
    9. 9. …a typical buying decision9
    10. 10. Ratings and Reviews Online Markets10 ■ After buying, the consumer is asked to give his feedback in two ways: a) stars ratings b) by answering a seller-feedback questions with an option of leaving a comment. ■ No obvious distinction -at the rating page- of what exactly being rated or reviewed. ■ In one of our user studies: Differentiate between 5 Stars and reviews 35% Did not know, thought 65% maybe product quality Customer Service Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    11. 11. Ratings in Online Markets Online Markets11 ■ Only at the description page (policies) □ stars rating is an overall rating of the product □ detailed review page is for the buying experience = reviewing the seller (order fulfillment, customer service, correct item description) ”If your comments include any of the following, your feedback is subject to removal: Product reviews: It is more appropriate to review product on the product detail page....Customers reviews are for products”. ■ Three reputation attributes: □ product quality □ seller reputation □ customer service Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    12. 12. Our User Studies12 Online Survey + interviews: Online Chocolate Store 200 users, different + detailed ratings countries ■ test □ how users perceive reputation □ how many of reputation attributes the users consider □ which of them the users focus on □ used in the decision process with each other or separately? □ their relation to the overall rating Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    13. 13. User Survey: http://www.kwiksurveys.com?s=ILNING_865460b6 Study 113
    14. 14. User Survey: http://www.kwiksurveys.com?s=ILNING_865460b6 Study 114
    15. 15. Results15 eBay Rating Frequency (number, 40 Gold 14 Sometimes 60 % stars) 21% Stars and % 65 Never % detailed Reviews % other No. of 20 Reviews No. of Reviews % 40 80 High-Value 60 % Detailed ratings % Stars % Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    16. 16. Results16 eBay Rating Frequency (number, 40 Gold 14 Sometimes 60 % stars) 21% Stars and % 65 Never % detailed Reviews % other high seller reputation conjoint measure of 11 price & quality % 50 Good Customer 39 Service % % other No. of 20 Reviews No. of Reviews % 40 80 High-Value 60 % Detailed ratings % Stars % Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    17. 17. Results: comparison bet. Rating styles17 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    18. 18. Results: comparison bet. Rating styles18 no ”reviews” option available  users explicitly asked for it to be added stating that this is the only way to gather more information on a provider before selecting him Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    19. 19. What does this mean? Analysis19 ■ Confusion in interpreting the meaning of □ rating styles □ reputation values ■ Reputation of a seller or a product means more than one attribute □ combination of attributes: neither represented nor clear from current rating methods ■ Detailed ratings were preferred over stars ratings and high number-of- reviews ■ Users tend to read reviews (comments and feedback) in order to decide on a product or a seller Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    20. 20. ChocStore Study 220 ■ Online Chocolate Store ■ For our institution personal ■ Normal Online store functionalities ■ 2 choices of payments ■ 3 choices of delivery ■ prices were changed significantly compared to the procurement cost (underpriced, overpriced) Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    21. 21. 21
    22. 22. Online Chocolate Store Objectives22 ■ How many attributes are suitable for a review ■ What is the important aspect of each user’s rating ■ Based on the previous study, we show that several attributes - delivery time for instance- affects rating ■ To examine categorized ratings with multiple attributes vs. overall ratings Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    23. 23. Online Chocolate Store Results23 ■ The overall rating does not always relate to the same attribute (i.e. delivery, quality, price) -> overall rating does not convey or show the meaning behind it ■ Delivery time affects delivery rating and sometimes overall rating ■ Prices always affect overall rating ■ Pick one attribute that is most important to your overall rating: Rating Attributes Delivery 23% 38.50% Price 38.50% Quality Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    24. 24. What does this mean? Analysis24 ■ Users gave the same overall rating for different reasons ■ Some cared more about product quality, others cared for how fast the delivery is ■ Average 4 attributes in the form was acceptable by all users ■ Singular formats of reputation is not enough ■ ignore the reasons and information behind the ratings ■ Users use several pieces of information to decide on a service provider Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    25. 25. So? Discussion25 ■ A more aware user ■ read textual reviews to find what he/she is looking for ■ Possible -> for human users though time consuming Not Possible -> in other domains e.g. software agents or web services, ■ text analysis: a highly expensive task that can not be performed for every transaction ■ A user seeking a provider checks for high reputed ones ■ assuming that the high reputation interprets into his own attribute of selection Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    26. 26. Why Rating is not enough? No context26 Bad E-Shop Review Business Relying Party Owner/Seller/Facto ry Delivery User Service Delayed Package Context excluded from the reputation value □ reputation query is too general □ 3 different contexts □ delivery, quality, price Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    27. 27. Why Rating is not enough? Single Rating27 ■ Rating “used books” □ is the rating for the book itself -> the user liked what he read □ or the quality of the book -> was new and good printing □ or the service provided by Amazon for example -> offering the book, price, delivery, payment method, etc. Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    28. 28. Why Rating is not enough? Different perceptions28 Different representations, interaction styles and trust rating scales Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    29. 29. Why Rating is not enough? Different perceptions29 Isolated reputation communities that have different: □ perception of reputation □ calculation of reputation □ interpretation of reputation □ overall reputation – not context related Different representations, interaction styles and trust rating scales Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    30. 30. Why Rating is not enough? No portability30 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    31. 31. Why Rating is not enough? No portability31 □ Starting from scratch for each domain □ Cold start problem □ No reputation information exchange Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    32. 32. Why Rating is not enough? No portability32 □ Starting from scratch for each domain □ Cold start problem □ No reputation information exchange Solution  Unify the representation not the calculation  Define a generic reputation Ontology  Embed more information- relating semantics  Facilitate knowledge exchange Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    33. 33. Ontologies Why Ontologies?33 Ontologies Concepts & relationships used to describe & represent an area of knowledge ■ creates a common understanding ■ specifies the factors -their explicit semantics - involved in computing reputation ■ separates the definition of reputation from how it is calculated ■ enables the mapping between reputation concepts in different models ■ facilitates the use of existing mapping &integration techniques in IS for reusing reputation info ■ reputation interoperability & cross community sharing of reputation information Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    34. 34. Competency Questions Reputation Requirements34  Q1 Reputation definition define the notion of reputation within the domain?  Q2 Reputation Identity entities? reputation roles such as source, target, evaluator, etc.?  Q3 Reputation representation in a single format? is it enough to express its meaning? how reputation will be represented, communicated?  Q4 Reputation statement a reputation statement? what information does a reputation transaction hold?  Q5 Reputation computation mechanism is there a property that defines and describes the computation mechanism? Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    35. 35. Cont. Competency Questions Reputation Requirements35  Q6 Reputation context a property that expresses the relation between a reputation value and the context of its creation? combine its reputation in different contexts?  Q7 Reputation factors factors affecting reputation? does the source’s reputation affect reputation calculation?  Q8 Reputation dynamics and temporal effect change through time? properties that reflect the change in reputation values? time validity? is the new value time-stamped?  Q9 Reputation history can we maintain the history of reputation values that an entity owned?  Q10 Reputation expressiveness can we define and describe the semantics of the involved factors, contexts, relations, and concepts? is there a way to communicate the semantics of a reputation context? Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    36. 36. Reputation Object Model Representation36 The RO model ■ Uses more information about the domain □ the contexts and/or relevant quality criteria ■ Using this information, reputation is represented differently □ as a developed object ■ The Reputation Object profiles an entity’s performance and has knowledge about □ contexts □ ratings values/reviews/feedback □ computation functions □ collecting method Reputation Object a profile of an entity’s performance Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    37. 37. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology37 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    38. 38. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology38 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    39. 39. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology39 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    40. 40. Reputation Object Ontology RO Ontology40 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    41. 41. Which Technology? Used Technology41 ■ Developing interoperable reputation objects requires ■ structure and standardize reputation info and its relevant data ■ enable data integration ■ provide ways to relate the data to its explicit semantics ■ provide common data representation framework in order to facilitate the integration of multiple sources to draw new conclusions Semantic Technologies Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    42. 42. What is Semantic Web? Semantic Technologies42 ■ extension of the current web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation ■ collection of standard technologies to realize a Web of Data where they are linked & are understandable by machines ■ provide common data representation framework in order to facilitate the integration of multiple sources to draw new conclusions ■ Goals ■ Standard Representation ■ Linkability and Integration ■ Automation ■ Reuse across applications Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    43. 43. …define and structure Semantic Technologies43 Define Structure ■ Ontologies ■ RDF Concepts &relationships used to ■ RDFa, microformats describe & represent an area of ■ OWL knowledge ■ … Data Integration Phases Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    44. 44. RO Ontology: OWL RO Ontology44 ■ Developed using Protégé 3.4.4 OWL-DL ■ Vocabulary of RO Ontology: ■ to represent an entitys (foaf:Agent) reputation ■ an object (ReputationObject) has one or multiple instances of class Criterion or QualityAttribute ■ each criterion instance has a ReputationValue (currentValueand historyList) that has a set of PossibleValues (as literals or resources URI) ■ a criterion is collected by a CollectingAlgorithm& computed using a ComputationAlgorithm ■ Employing also known vocabulary OWL, RDFS, FOAF, XSD, RDF Review, .. Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    45. 45. Implementation: Library RO Ontology45 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    46. 46. Using Semantic Technologies Goals46  enabling reputation information exchange  facilitate the integration of multiple sources to draw new conclusions,  connecting data to its definitions and to its context  achieving reputation interoperability  Context-aware reputation  ensuring understandability and reusability of the embedded information Semantic Technologies Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    47. 47. A seller RO in e-Markets Applications47 ■ Using GoodRelations ontologies to describe a seller and RO ontology to describe its reputation Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    48. 48. Usage Control in E-Markets Applications48 ■ Using ROs for decisions during runtime allows revoking participants due to their former behavior ■ Security settings is one of the RO criteria Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    49. 49. Rule-based Reputation Systems Applications49 ■ Using Rule Responder (Multi Agent Reasoning system) to deploy distributed rule inference services ■ Agents/services communicate reputation objects or specific measures in them ■ Reputation values used in the agent’s rule logic, o e.g. deciding on a seller based on delivery method and review Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    50. 50. Cloud Provider Selection Applications50 ■ Selecting cloud providers based on their reputation & a consumer preference list ■ Reducing the risks by selecting reputable SPs From the detailed reputation profile, □ cross reference the quality parameters requested by the consumer and the performance parameters extracted from the providers’ reputation objects. Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    51. 51. Personalized News Network38 ■ Real Experience  We want to stay informed with real trusted news  Online Social Network was the answer ■ 2 motivating facts:  Delayed news in the mainstream media  Fabricated news Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    52. 52. Personalized News Network38 ■ Real Experience  We want to stay informed with real trusted news  Online Social Network was the answer ■ 2 motivating facts:  Delayed news in the mainstream media  Fabricated news Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    53. 53. Personalized News Network38 ■ Real Experience  We want to stay informed with real trusted news  Online Social Network was the answer ■ 2 motivating facts:  Delayed news in the mainstream media  Fabricated news Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    54. 54. Personalized News Network38 ■ Real Experience  We want to stay informed with real trusted news  Online Social Network was the answer ■ 2 motivating facts:  Delayed news in the mainstream media  Fabricated news ■ Filtered □ Trends □ Trusted networks Reputation.Interoperability (Semantic Technologies);
    55. 55. Thank YouRehab Alnemr(rehab.alnemr@hpi.uni-potsdam.de)
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×