LINGUIST List 15.635

Wed Feb 18 2004

Calls: Phonetics/Sweden; Computational Ling/Portugal

Editor for this issue: Andrea Berez <>

As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at


  1. merle.horne, Nordic Prosody 4
  2. Magali Jeanmaire, User Oriented Evaluation of Knowledge Discovery Systems

Message 1: Nordic Prosody 4

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:52:41 -0500 (EST)
From: merle.horne <>
Subject: Nordic Prosody 4

Nordic Prosody 4

Date: 08-Aug-2004 - 10-Aug-2004
Location: Lund, Sweden, Sweden
Contact: Gösta Bruce
Contact Email: 
Meeting URL: 

Linguistic Sub-field: Phonetics ,Phonology

Call Deadline: 20-Apr-2004 

Meeting Description:

The Department of Linguistics & Phonetics at Lund University will host
the 9th Nordic Prosody conference August 8-10, 2004.

The conference organizers cordially invite contributions on all
aspects of Nordic language prosody.

All accepted papers will be published in a volume. 

 * 1-page abstract submission: April 20, 2004
 * Notification of acceptance: May 10, 2004
 * Full text submission:August 25, 2004

Abstracts, as well as requests for information, should be sent to: .

FEES (Preliminary):
(Fees include conference dinner and proceedings)
 * Before May 25, 2004
 * Regular: 500 SEK
 * Student: 300 SEK

 * After May 25, 2004
 * Regular: 600 SEK
 * Student: 400 SEK

Accomodation: A list of hotels and other accomodation in Lund can be
found at the following site:

Welcome to Nordic Prosody 4!
Gösta Bruce and Merle Horne (Conference organizers)
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: User Oriented Evaluation of Knowledge Discovery Systems

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:34:04 +0100
From: Magali Jeanmaire <>
Subject: User Oriented Evaluation of Knowledge Discovery Systems

Workshop: User Oriented Evaluation of Knowledge Discovery Systems

Centro Cultural de Belem, Lisbon, Portugal.
25th May, 2004, afternoon

In association with the 4th International Conference on Language
Resources and Evaluation:

LREC 2004 - Main conference May 26th 28th, 2004

The problem area
Knowledge discovery systems, such as intelligent information
extraction and data mining, offer special challenges to the evaluation
community. The only real measure of success with such a system is
whether it really will help someone to achieve an objective
efficiently, in safety and with satisfaction (to paraphrase ISO/IEC
9126 talking of'quality in use').

With other softwares, a task can be identified such that producing the
results specified will satisfy the needs of a wide range of users: for
example, a speech recognition system must accurately recognize words,
a spelling checker must identify all mistaken spellings, a machine
translation system must produce good quality translation, and this
remains true even if the system is embedded in some larger system. In
all these cases, simply achieving the specified results will be enough
to achieve a certain level of quality. Furthermore, there are accepted
metrics which can be applied to the system to judge whether it is
achieving the specified results. Evaluators therefore create and
implement metrics whose job, even if the metric is applied to system
design or to system behaviour independently of context of use, is to
predict whether, at the end of the day, someone will want to use the
system to get some useful job done.

The situation is considerably more complicated in the case of
knowledge discovery systems, where the notion of utility to a specific
potential user is much more complicated. The critical question is not,
for example, whether a given piece of software identifies clusters
with strong intra-cluster similarity and strong inter-cluster
dissimilarity, but whether the end user finds the clusters identified
useful in accomplishing his task. By definition, the task of each
user is similar to that of other users only at a quite high level of
generality, such as the search for new insights, so that it is hard,
if not impossible,to tell during system design and subsequent
development whether the ultimate user will be happy or not. Of course,
it would be possible to manufacture and install the system and then to
test for user satisfaction in situ, but that seems a less than
satisfactory solution from the system designer's or manufacturer's
point of view.

Even apart from the problem of accounting for potential user needs,
definition of metrics for knowledge discovery systems poses special
problems for several reasons. First, knowledge discovery systems are
typically used in situations where a mass of data too large for
thorough human understanding has to be dealt with. Secondly, in at
least some situations, the data to be treated is not homogeneous in
kind or in reliability. Finally these and other factors make it very
difficult if not impossible for an evaluator to define what might
constitute a good result. For example, if a system is supposed to
discover market trends or trends in teenage behaviour which were
previously unknown, how can you find out whether it does so correctly
or whether there are important trends which have gone undiscovered?
This is, of course, only one example of a question which might be

To summarize all this in concrete terms, we give the following typical
scenario, which contributors to the workshop may take as a framework
for their contribution if they choose.

An organisation has a very large number of reports produced over many
years. These reports contain information in the form of text, graphics
and tabular data which is potentially of considerable importance to
current and future projects of the organisation. It is not feasible to
search the mass of reports manually. If the organisation wants to
deploy a knowledge discovery system to find and present information
relevant to a specified context, what criteria should it look for in a
potential system, and how can it evaluate whether the system performs
satisfactorily in retrieving pertinent information? If the mass of
documents to be searched is even larger and perhaps dynamically
changing, for example the World Wide Web, how does this change the

Workshop format

The main purpose of the workshop is to launch discussion on this
topic. The workshop will start with brief invited presentations
setting out the points of view of
- the users
- the developers
- the evaluators

The rest of the workshop will be organised around brief presentations
whose main purpose is to set out a problem in the user oriented
evaluation of knowledge discovery and text or data mining
systems. Each presentation will then serve as the basis for larger
discussion with all the participants in the workshop. Thus the
workshop will be divided up into one-hour sessions, each of which will
start with a twenty to thirty minute presentation.

Proposals for presentations
We invite proposals for presentations from representatives of all
those concerned by the issues:

third party evaluators, specialists in evaluation, designers and
manufacturers of knowledge discovery systems and most particularly
users or potential users of knowledge discovery systems.

Since the purpose of the workshop is to launch discussion, we are not
asking for full papers from those who wish to make a
presentation. Rather, contributions should set out the problems to be
presented and should state whether a solution will also be
presented. Elegant prose is not required: contributions in note form
will be acceptable. Proposals for contributions may be very brief,
typically between two and five pages. Final versions of the
contributions will be included in the workshop workbook, which will
take the place of a more conventional set of proceedings.

Submission procedure
Proposals for contributions should be sent to:

Important Dates

- Deadline for proposals for contributions: March 1st 2004
- Notification of acceptance: March 8th
- Preliminary Programme: March 10th
- Deadline for final version of contributions: April 8th
- Workshop: May 29th 2004

The workbook will be published by the LREC Local Organising Committee.
Final versions of contributions must therefore conform to the style
sheet that will be adopted for the LREC proceedings. This style sheet
will be made available in February.

Organising Committee

Maghi King, ISSCO/TIM, University of Geneva
Hilbert Bruins Slot, Unilever Nederland BV
Myra Spiliopoulou, University of Magdeburg
Agnes Lisowska, ISSCO/TIM, University of Geneva
Nancy Underwood, ISSCO/TIM, University of Geneva
Fabio Rinaldi, Institute of Computational Linguistics, University of
Michael Hess, Institute of Computational Linguistics, University of

Further information

For any further information, please contact
Maghi King
University of Geneva
40 blvd du Pont d'Arve
CH 1211 Geneva 4
Phone: +41 +22 739 87 55
Fax: +41 +22 739 86 89


55-57, rue Brillat-Savarin
75013 Paris FRANCE
Tel: (+33) 1 43 13 33 33 / Fax: (+33) 1 43 13 33 30
URL: or

LREC conference:
LangTech forum:

Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue