Questions for 22 March

Smeulders et al.

Rating: 1

1) Why is it important to look at the past? The authors of this paper could have chosen to focus on the future and talked about where content-based image retrieval is going, but instead they are looking at what was happening 10 years before their publication to see what ideas worked out and which ones didn’t.  What value does this have for present researchers?

2) How does the end goal of the user affect the image retrieval tools used? Why do some methods fit some search patterns better than others? When I search a set of images (locally on my computer or on-line) what happens differently if I’m looking for an image of the Mona Lisa as opposed to an image of a generic tree? Since Smeulders wrote this paper has the field improved as far as using the right tools for the job is concerned?

3) The authors raise the question of how to evaluate system performance in content-based image retrieval but focus mainly on the problems associated with it without discussing possible solutions to those problems. How can some of these challenges be met? What has been tried – successfully or unsuccessfully – since the paper was published?

Saracevic, Tefko

Rating: 2

1) Saracevic claims on page 146 that we need no definition for relevance because its meaning is known to everyone. He compares it to information in this way, as though information needs no definition. But in the same paragraph he asserts that relevance “affects the whole process of communication, overtly or subtly.” He calls it a “fundamental aspect of human communication.” If relevance is so important how can we get by without defining it? Wouldn’t a definition help us understand the meaning better than when we rely on intuition alone? That understanding could, in turn, lead to improved communication.

2) How does this paper relate to the Smeulders paper we read? What is the role of relevance in content-based image retrieval? In the 25 years between the two papers did the concept of relevance evolve?

3) There are many different views on relevance described in the paper. What is the “so what?” of these views? How does this philosophical discussion of relevance affect the practical side of information science? As an example, would a follower of the ‘deductive inference view’ build a different retrieval system than a follower of the ‘pragmatic view’? What differences would there be and how would the differing schools of thought give birth to these differences?

Croft, Metzler, and Strohman

Rating: 3

1) The definition of Information Retrieval that the authors borrow from Gerard Salton is very broad. The benefit to this is that the definition is still applicable today even though it was penned 45 years ago. What is the downside to using a dated definition? Are they missing out on any potential benefits that an updated definition might bring? If they wanted to update the definition, could they? Since IR is so broad that it encompasses many fields is it possible to update the definition without driving a wedge between certain aspects of IR?

2) How does time affect IR? As time passes objects can change – especially digital objects. A new version of software is released, a website’s content is updated, Wikipedia is edited, etc. If the information I’m seeking is something that existed on a certain day or at a certain time how does this affect IR?

3) How do concepts like ‘relevance’ and/or ‘evaluation’ transfer from one branch of IR to another? How are these concepts different for, say, a search engine designer and a cartographer (who, by Salton’s definition is in an IR career)? Is there a difference?