The impact of digital library in detecting of learning

difficulties
Samia Ait Adda

Balla Amar

National High School of Computer,

Ouad Smar, Algiers, Algeria
ESI
s_ait_adda@esi.dz

National High School of Computer,

Ouad Smar, Algiers, Algeria
ESI
a_balla@esi.dz

Abstract Digital libraries on distance learning platforms are

ways that allow learners to consult and enrich their knowledge
on the content that are studied in their course. In this paper, we
are interested in the semantic analysis of the content of the
resources visited in the digital libraries (eBooks) by learners
using domain ontology. The purpose of this analysis is to identify
the domain concepts that are most consulted and read by
learners from the digital libraries and to keep them into the
leaners model as concepts not well mastered. We hypothesize
that all domain concepts visited in resources from the digital
libraries can be considered as knowledge poorly or badly
acquired by learners and merit thus more attention and
consideration both by the tutor for the didactic monitoring of
learners on these concepts and from author of course, to
restructure and more enrich the educational content which
articulate these concepts identified beforehand in this analysis.

But in our case we are in the situation of analysis of behaviors

and knowledge of learners through their use of these online
libraries.

Keywords- e-Learning, Digital library, domain ontology,

conceptual indexing, learner model.

This article is organized as follows. Section 2 describes

digital libraries in e-learning system, and then we are interested
in some semantic web tools, such as ontologies and the
possibility, thanks to these tools to exploit the keyword from
the catalogue of the library to detect concepts badly acquired
by learner which will be presented in Section 3 and in Section
4 we detail and explain our approach, Finally in Section 5 we
described the experimentation and discuss the result.

I. INTRODUCTION
Our work is placed in the field of the Interactive
Educational System; we set us therefore in a context of an
online learning. Hence, learners work remotely on platforms
which allow them to attend courses, make tests and exercises,
discuss by means of communication tools or consult digital
libraries even integrated in these platforms or on the Web [1].
With the tremendous growth of internet, learners have access to
an overwhelming range of information source available at the
click of mouse: specifically the digital libraries.
Digital libraries have become a daily service in the
activities
of
the
users
of
the
Internet
to
reach information on the Web and enrich their knowledge. The
learner, user of the Web through e-learning systems, does not
make an exception of this trend. In fact, digital libraries are
regarded as a support for the learner and the platform, they
provide supplements for the contents of the course in the
learning environments and references for the learners work.
They have the characteristics to be accessible at any time and
at any place, easily accessible, readable and essentially be
available [2].
It is true that digital libraries are seen as an opportunity for
students to expand their knowledge and learn more perfectly.

978-1-4799-7508-2/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

In this article we try to underline the inherent cause that

pushes learners to appropriate some concepts of the domain
out of course, by the use of digital libraries. Toward this aim, it
sought answers to the following questions: Is the learner in lack
of understanding and finds some difficult to assimilate some
concept of the course content? Is the content of course poor
and badly structured? Or simply is to deepen the
knowledge acquired on the level of the course?
To
better
understand the preoccupations aroused, we have relied on the
assumption which says that all concepts consulted by the
learner in digital libraries may have certain failures with the
learner on certain concepts of the taught domain.

II. E-LEARNING AND DIGITAL LIBRARY

E-learning has been seen as the technology to provide
advantages such as consistent and worldwide training, reduced
delivery cycle time, increased learners convenience, and
reduced information overload [3]. It can also serve as an access
point for digital library resources which allow the students to
access these resources anytime and anywhere as long as they
are connected to the Internet [4]. Krishnamurthy [5] defines
digital libraries as electronic libraries in which large number
of geographically distributed users can access the contents of
large and diverse repositories of electronic objects (networked
text, images, maps, sounds, videos, catalogues, data sets).
Digital libraries become a basic piece of any learning
environment, providing learners with high quality contents,
properly described and supported by means of metadata
taxonomies and ontologies[6]. They are organizations that
provide organized and managed collection of digital
information accessible over a network [7,8]. Rezaei
Sharifabadi [9] argued that digital libraries are valuable for

complete information access leads to bettter education and

academic research. Gibbons made it cleear that e-books
provide online research service that complem
ments and supports
the collection of a traditional library. [10]

learner and thus require moree attention from the tutor and
designer of course to adapt conttent and help learner.

Various higher educational institutiions [8,11] and

government institutions [12,13] around the world
w
recognize the
importance of digital learning collections. Library services
ment system (LMS)
could be integrated with Learning managem
such as WebCT, Blackboard, Angel or Moodle, so as to make
accessible all course components , direct links such as ejournals, articles, online interactive reeference service,
electronic book collections, selected innternet resources,
electronic course reserves, tutorials and
a
forums for
communication and interaction with others[144].

The Semantic Web [22] is an

a understandable and navigable
space by both human and software agents. It introduces an
additional meaning to the navvigational data of the classical
web, based on a formal ontologgies and controlled vocabularies
through semantic links. In stanndpoint of e-learning, it can help
learners to locate, access, querrying, processing and evaluating
learning resources across distribbuted heterogeneous network, or
assist teachers in creating, usinng, locating, or the sharing and
exchanging learning objects. The
T semantic web technologies
[23] have also been used as an alternative to allow adaptability
and interoperability of e-learninng systems. This is to overcome
the limitations of the current web
w to promote interoperability,
enabling different applicationss to share, interact, collaborate
and exchange resources. It allso allows the development of
intelligent agents [24], capablee of ensuring adaptability, using
inference and search engines,, implemented through domain
ontology [25].

If digital library is focused as a colleection of learning

material, it may be useful to think of it as reppository of learning
objects. Librarians describe the resources of
o catalogues and
other collections through metadata in order
o
to facilitate
efficiently the research and delivery of inform
mation. Indeed the
resource descriptions enable users to discoveer and identify the
existing resources and to evaluate and distinguish between
different sources and allow the optionn to personalize
information presented via learners informatioon profile [15].
Due to the importance of digital libraries, there are riches of
works investigating their usage and usabbility [8, 11, 16].
However, most of these studies were focusedd on their usability,
i.e., factors that affect the use of the technollogy. Medarova et
al. [17] further stressed that current literaturre contains mostly
successful stories on the utilization of thiis technology and
rarely reported negative experiences.
Some researchers concentrate on speciffic digital libraries
and specific users, in particular, educationaal digital libraries
and learners. Yang [18] examined learnerss problem-solving
process in using the Perseus digital libraryy by adopting an
interpretive and situated approach. The finddings of the study
helped designers develop and refine better inntellectual tools to
facilitate learners performance. Kassim et al.
a [19] performed
usability studies of an educational digital library
l
in order to
understand user needs, find problems, identiffy desired features,
and assess overall user satisfaction. Hill ett al. [20] collected
feedback about the users interaction with the interfaces of
Alexandria Digital Library, the problems of the interfaces, the
requirements of system functionality, and thhe collection of the
digital library. Hong [21] show that userrs use of digital
libraries, their perceived Digital Library evaluuation criteria, and
their preference, experience, and knowleddge structure codetermine their evaluation of digital librarries. While users
proposed Digital Library evaluation criterria represent their
desired images of digital libraries, their actual evaluation
reflects their expectation of digital libraries.
This paper does not aim to show the usabbility of the digital
library and its advantages or even evaluate itss performance, but
to show it as a means to highlight the conceepts sought by the
learner in the catalogue of this library. These identified
concepts will then be semantically analyzed and compared
with those of the course modeled through a domain ontology
that we will detail in the following paragraphh. Therefore, these
concepts can be regarded as problematic knowledge
k
for the

III. DOMAIIN ONTOLOGY

Ontology [26] includes a set of terms, knowledge,

including vocabulary, semantiic relations, and a number of
logic-inference rules for some particular
p
domain. The ontology
applied to Web creates thus the Semantic Web [27]. Ontologies
[28] facilitate the sharing annd reuse of knowledge, i.e. a
common understanding of diiverse content by persons and
machines.
l
environments aims to
The use of ontology in learning
provide mechanisms to improve the search process and
semantic discovery of learninng resources. It also offers the
capacity to organize and dissplay information such as the
viewing of relationships betweeen concepts.
The use of ontology in ourr case consists in the conceptual
indexing of the researched queery and on top of that indexing,
the most searched domain cooncepts on Digital Library by
learners will thus be detected. This
T ontology also represents the
structure of the learners modeel, since it is part of the domain
model, i.e. the domain ontologyy in our case
The model of domain ontoloogy that we propose is shown in
Figure 1. The considered educcational resources are described
by a set of metadata (LOM) [299].

Figure 1. Model of domain ontology

IV. THE ARCHITECTURE OF PROPOSED APPROACH

To detect knowledge of domain supposed poorly assimilated
by learners and learners with difficulties, we propose an
approach that consists in constructing vector relative to the
concepts look up on the digital libraries by learners.
These concepts are taken from the query of learner made on
the catalogue and then indexed according to the concepts of
the taught course through the domain ontology (semantic
indexing). The most researched concepts by a learner or group
of learners are then highlighted. Our goal is twofold. On the
one hand we try to detect the most consulted concepts of
domain in Digital Library by learners, in the other hand we
want to identify learners who have used these concepts via the
digital library to make inquiries about some domain concepts.
The approach that we propose is divided into three basic
processes: (1) extraction of the keyword from the library
catalogue, (2) Conceptual Indexing and (3) the management
and processing of results, this is what will be detailed in the
following of this paper.
A. Building of the learner vector of keyword from catalogue
To perform indexing, we need the keyword which is
included in the queries of the learner from the catalogue of the
digital library of the platform. It just consists of access in the
log file of the platform and keeps them from the history of the
learner navigation and extracted them. The result will be in the
form of vector thus closing the keywords of learner sought
using the digital library of the platform.
B. The conceptual indexing
Once we have the keywords of each request of the learner
(the term vector) in the catalogue, we proceed to their
conceptual indexing. To perform conceptual indexing, we need
an external resource that offers an organization by concepts
and structure [30,31].
We use in our case of study domain ontology formalized
with SKOS1 format (Simple Knowledge Organization System)
[32, 33]. We also use a mapping pattern in the level of concepts
(ontology), a tool for selecting terms (from the document) able
to solve the semantic ambiguities, and finally a conceptual
weighting system.
1) Concept Identification
The purpose of this step is to identify ontology concepts that
correspond to the query words. Concept identification [34] is
based on the overlap of the local context of the analyzed word
with every corresponding domain ontology entry.
This ontology contains a set of concepts C and a set of
relationships between concepts R (c1, c2). As shown in the
ontology extract of the PHP course over the Figure 2, each
concept is associated with one or more terms with SKOS
properties "prefLabel" (preferred label) or "altLabel"
(alternative label), as well as a semantic relationship. Hence,
concept C2 is a sub concept of C1 via the hierarchy link
"Broader" of SKOS.
1http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/SKOS/reference/20090315/implementatio
n.html

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/
skos/PHP#">
<skos:Concept rdf:about="C1">
addition <skos:prefLabel xml:lang="en">variable and
constant </skos:prefLabel>
<skos:altLabel xml:lang="en">datum</skos:altLabel>
<skos:prefLabel xml:lang="fr">variable et
constante
</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:altLabel
xml:lang="fr">donne</skos:altLabel>
</skos:Concept>
<skos:Concept rdf:about="C2">
<skos:prefLabel
xml:lang="en">type</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:prefLabel
xml:lang="fr">type</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:broader rdf:about="C1">
</skos:Concept>
</rdf:RDF>
Figure 2. An extract of domain ontology of PHP course with SKOS format

Concepts are referred in the query with simple or compound

words (term). The concept identification algorithm is given in
Figure 3.
Input: query Q.
Output: Vector of all ontology concepts belonging to terms of
query Q.
Procedure
Let wi be the next word to analyze in the query q. We define the
context sentI which is the set of terms of query that contains the
word occurrence wi being analyzed.
Compute V i = {C1 ,C2 ,...,Cn } the of ontology entries
containing wi.
Each C j Vi is represented by a multiword or mono-word
term.
Rank concepts Cj in set Vi in where: | C(1) | > | C(2)|> | | > |
C(n) | // | | denotes the concept length, in terms of the number of
words in the corresponding terms.
For each element Cj in Vi do
Get common words between senti and representative term of Cj
, which is the intersection
N = (senti ,C j )
If |N | < | C j | then the concept-sense is not within the
context.
EndIf
If |N | = | C j | then the concept-sense Cj is within the context
senti.
Add Cj to the set of vectors element (index) associated to query
Q.Figure 3. The algorithm of Words Mapping into Concepts [34]
EndIf
EndFor

In the ontology, a set of terms is used for labeling concepts and

relationships between concepts. That set forms the vocabulary
of the ontology. To respond nevertheless in case if the

processed term is ambiguous, a disambiguation step is so

necessary.
Each term ti (simple or compound words) in query may be
associated with a number of related possible ontology
concepts.
Thus we distinguish the situation of semantic or polysemy
ambiguity. That set forms the vocabulary of the situation of
semantic or polysemous ambiguity. For example, the term
"table" has a three meaning in PHP ontology: (1) table of data
structure, (2) table in database and table in the html structure.
It can refer to three different concepts. In this case we proceed
as follows, for an ambiguous term ti in the query, we seek a
label of a concept Ck linked in the ontology with a concept Ci
which is indicated by the ambiguous term ti. If Ck exists, Ci is
taken as the concept designated by the term ti.
2) Concept Weighting
The extracted concepts are weighted according to a method
more general than tf *idf named Cfc * idf (concept-frequencyinversed query frequency). In this method each extracted term
represents necessarily a concept of the ontology since we used
ontology to identify them. For a concept C its frequency in a
query depends on the frequency of the word itself [35]. It is
calculated as follows:

(1)
(2)

Where: t (c) is the set of terms corresponding to different

concept C.
The weight of each concept in a query q is so calculated as
follows:
  

(3)

C. Representation of the learner knowledge model

The learners models are cognitive models which allow to
provide relevant information for a learning system in order to
adapt learning to the knowledge, competences, features,
preferences and objectives of apprenticeship to learner in
particular domain (these which is taken in the learning
environment) [36].
There are five popular and useful features for an individual
learners representation, these are: the learners knowledge,
interests, goals, background, and individual traits [37]. The
user's knowledge of the subject being taught or the domain
represented in hyperspace appears to be the most important
user feature. For existing learning adaptative system, the
knowledge is frequently the only user feature being wellmodeled [38, 39].
So, corresponding to each learner, we obtain set of sessions
(i.e. Consist on the connection time of a leaner on his personal
space in the e-leaning platform). Let C be a set of n Concept of
the Domain ontology: C = { C1, C2,... , Cn}, and let L be a set
of m learners registered in a specific course within the e-

learning environment, L= {L1, L2, , Lm}, the learner

knowledge model LKi corresponding to the learner Li L is
represented by a set of p sessions Sij extracted from log file :
LKi={ ,., } where each is a subset of k
weighted
requested
concept
Ci
incatalogue,

Where each

for some L {1, 2..., n}, and is the weight

associated with the requested concept in the session

corresponding to the ith learner compute with the Equation (
3).
The learners knowledge component LKi can be
represented as a matrix Ml(p, n), where p is the total number of
learners sessions and n the cardinality of concept of the
domain ontology. Therefore, concepts with a high weight by
estimating a threshold , that we will fixed by experimentation,
will be reviewed as problematic domain concepts for a learner.
Therefore, the tutor may intervene to help the learner on these
concepts.
Once learners models are delimited properly, we apply a
second treatment based on a collaborative analysis in order to
detect the most concepts which is asked on the web by a group
of learners based on their queries.
So the learners knowledge of groups will be presented as
matrix Mg(m,n) where m is the total number of learners who
participate in the learning process. Thus, the weight Wk of
each concept Ck in session sessions Sij will be computed by the
sum of the weights of all learners


(4)

Similarly to the first treatment, the concepts greater than a
threshold , which we also determine the value by evaluation,
will be considered as wrong developed concepts in the course.
To this end, the designer of course can review the content of
resources that explain these identified concepts, and further
enrich its course on these concepts.
V. EXPERIMENTATION
A. The Test Collection
For our experiments, we have proceeded to test on group
of computer science students in the second years, with the
number of 27. We have proposed to them PHP course, shown
in eFAD2 platform and modeled with the ontology of SKOS
format, the learner have access in the Digital library of the
platform and these of the university. So the test was performed
in three sessions of one hour.
The PHP course is mainly composed of 8 top concepts and
49 sub-concepts. To consolidate our experiment, we have
conceived a questionary paper which we have distributed to
students, asking them to place concepts that pose them
problem. At the end of the test, a written assessment was
performed for all learners.
2 www.ufc.efad.dz

B. Evaluation of results:
The result of the experimentations consists of 27 vector of
each learner plus the general vector. Therefore, we constituted
a number of 56 requests for all of learners participated in the
Test. The following diagram shows the score characterizing the
main domain concepts for each learner:

master, but this study may also be interpreted as a variable,

which interprets the behavior of the learner, by the uses of
digital libraries and its interest on the course content through
his will to succeed by trying to deepen and complete
knowledge.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this article, we have highlighted the need to analyze the
request edited by learners in the digital library catalog during
the learning sessions and we have proposed an approach for
semantic analysis that we have presented and explained which
permits to detect domain concepts that were difficult for
learners, by comparing the content of their query with domain
ontology of the studied course. An experiment was carried out
on a group of students taking a PHP course, and has enabled us
to validate the proposed approach and to set some parameters.

Figure 4. The requested weights of the main domain concepts on the catalog
of digital library of the efad platform

The challenge of this test was to find the concepts

insufficiently mastered by each learner. That is to say; the
threshold , that we set to evaluate the most concepts which
posed problem for student j, is estimated by the median of the
weights of concepts edited by this learner. This threshold is
different from learner to learner; accordingly we have counted
27 values of this threshold. Indeed, we found that the concepts
C3, C4 and C6 have posed a problem for some students who
are recognized by the following process.
As that is signaled, a written assessment was performed for
each learner on each concept of the domain as well as a
questionnaire which we have asked them to indicate the
concepts not mastered. Therefore, the following diagram shows
a comparison of different results obtained by the assessment,
the weight of requested concepts from library and
questionnaire responses.

Figure 5. Synthesis of the Mark-Weight-Questionnaire results for each

learner

As for the threshold , which we considered to estimate the

concepts which are badly defined in course, it is determined by
comparing the result with that obtained through the written
assessment and questionary responses, the value is fixed at
0.46. As a result, we detect that 6 learners have problems on
some concepts of domain (learners 3, 5, 11, 14, 17, 25).
It's true that we seek in this article to get the references of
the learner using digital libraries to detect concepts not well

This result needs to be further refined by additional tests,

which we are currently conducting. Moreover, we considered
only the digital library own to the platform, our outlook is to
take into account the context of research and visit on the
external digital library.
REFERENCES
[1] P.J. Stokes, How E-Learning will transform education.
Education
Week.
2000.
available
at:www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug= 02stokes.h20
[2] P. Nicholas & T. White, e-Learning, e-Books and Virtual
Reference Service: The Nexus between the Library and
Education, Journal of Library & Information Services in
Distance
Learning,
6:1,
3-18,
2012.
DOI:
10.1080/1533290X.2012.660877
[3] H. Daqing and Y. Peng , Ming Mao, Palo Alto, and Dan Wu
, Supporting information access in e-learning by integrating
digital libraries and ontology, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 704-728,
2010. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1468-4527 DOI
10.1108/14684521011084582
[4] S. Rezaei Sharifabadi: How digital libraries can support elearning. The Electronic Library, 24, 3, 389401, 2006.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640470610671231
[5] M. Krishnamurthy, Digital library services at the Indian
Statistical Institute. The Electronic Library, 23 (2), 200-203,
2005.
[6] F. Nuria Ferran. Enriching E-Learning metadata through
Digital usage analysis. The Electronic Library. 25(2), 14816, 2007.
[7] Digital Library Federation.. A working definition of digital
library.
Retrieved
Janary
10,
2013
from
http://old.diglib.org/about/dldefinition.html
[8] J. Jeng, What is usability in the context of the digital library
and how can it be measured? Information Technology &
Libraries, 24, 2, 48-56, June 2005.
[9] Webopedia. 2010. Portal. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from
www.webopedia.com/TERM/p/portal.html.
[10] K. Kumar & S. Jaideep. E-Learning: The Learner centred
education for LIS professionals. Journal of Library
Information Science, 32(1), 1-16, 2007.
[11] R. Bringula, Influence of faculty- and web portal designrelated factors on web portal usability: A hierarchical
regression analysis. Computers & Education, 68, 87-198.

[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

October.2013.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.008.
L. Z. Lee, 2001. Growing a national learning environment
and resources network for science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology education: Current issues and opportunities
for the NSDL program. D-Lib Magazine, 7, 3 , March 2001.
S. Nabi, World digital library: A case study. Trends in
Information Technology, 23-31. Jan. 2012.
S. Athavale E-Learning and its impact on Digital Library
and LIS: a birds eye view EPW Research Foundation
J. Foster-Jones, & H. Beazleigh,Metadata in the changing
learning environment, ALTJ, vol.10, issue 1. April 2002
M. Agosti, F. Crivellari, G. M. Di Nunzio, and S.Gabrielli,
2010. Understanding user requirements and preferences for a
digital library Web portal. International Journal on Digital
Libraries, 11, 4 (Dec. 2010), 225-238, DOI=
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00799-011-0075-7.
V. Medarova, V. Bures, and T. Otcenaskova, 2012. A
review of obstacles to successful e-learning deployment in
SMEs. Journal of Innovation Management in Small &
Medium Enterprises, 2012, Article ID 715039 (Dec. 2012),
1-9. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.5171/2012.715039.
Yang, S. C. (2001). An interpretive and situated approach to
an evaluation of Perseus digital libraries. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology,
52, 12101223
A. R. C. Kassim & T. R. Kochtanek,. Designing,
implementing, and evaluating an educational digital library
resource. Online Information Review, 27(3), 160168, 2003.
L. L. Hill, L. Carver, M. Larsgaard, R. Dolin, T. R. Smith, ,
J. Frew, Alexandria digital library: User evaluation studies
and system design. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 51, 246259. 2000.
H. Iris Xie,Users evaluation of digital libraries (DLs):
Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment, Information
Processing and Management 44 (2008) 13461373
doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.003
D.
Dicheva. Ontologies and Semantic Web for ELearning, In : "Handbook on Information Technologies for
Education and Training", 978-3-540-74155-8, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
J. Mota, and A. Fernandes, Adaptivity and Interoperability
in e-Learning Using Ontologies. IBERAMIA 2010, LNAI
6433, pp. 592601, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
M. Farida Begam and G. Ganapathy, Adaptive learning
management system using semantic web technologies;
International Journal on Soft Computing (IJSC) Vol.4, No.1,
DOI: 10.5121/ijsc.2013.4101 1, February 2013.
P. Dolog and W. Nejdl: Semantic web technologies for the
adaptive web. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W.
(eds.) Adaptive Web 2007. LNCS, vol. 4321, pp. 697719.
Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.
U. Siti, A. Rohiza, and M. Shakirah. Ontology of
Programming Resources for Semantic Searching of
Programming Related Materials on the Web. 978-1-42446716-7110, IEEE, 2010.
T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler and O. Lassila, The Semantic
Web,
Scientific
American,
pp.28-37.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2001/0501issue/0501
berners -lee.html , Mai 2001.

[28] T. Zschocke, and deLeon, J.Towards an Ontology for the

Description of Learning Resources on Disaster Risk
Reduction, Part I, CCIS 111, pp. 6074, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg. WSKS 2010.
[29] IMS Global Learning Consortium. IMS Meta-data Best
Practice Guide for IEEE 1484.12.1- 2002 Standard for
Learning Object Metadata , 2006.
[30] M. Baziz, M. Boughanem, and N. Aussenac-Gilles, A
Conceptual Indexing Approach based on Document Content
Representation, CoLIS5: Fifth International Conference on
Conceptions ofLibraries and Information Science, Glasgow,
UK, 4 june to 8 june 2005.
[31] M. Baziz, M. Boughanem, G. PASI, H. PRADE, An
Information Retrieval Driven by Ontology from Query to
Document Expansion. Proceedings of the 8th Conference
on Large-Scale Semantic Access to Content (Text, Image,
Video and Sound), RIAO 2007.
[32] J. Tuominen, ,M. Frosterus, K. Viljanen and E. Hyvnen,:
ONKI SKOS Server for Publishing and Utilizing SKOS
Vocabularies and Ontologies as Services. In: European
Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2009.
[33] A. Miles and D. Brickley, editors. SKOS Core Guide.
W3C
Working
Draft
10
May
2005.
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-guide/
[34] S. Ait Adda and A. Balla: Enrichment of Learner Profile
through the Semantic Analysis of the Learners Query on the
Web . In: The Fourth international conference on Innovative
Computing Technology (INTECH 2014)
[35] M. Dragoni, C. Pereira and A. Tettamanzi, An Ontological
Representation of Documents and Queries for Information
Retrieval Systems, IEA/AIE 2010, Part II, LNAI 6097, pp.
555564, Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
[36] K. VanLehn: Student models. In: M.C. Polson and J.J.
Richardson (eds.): Foundations of intelligent tutoring
systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale. 5578,1988.
[37] P. Brusilovsky, N. Henze: Open corpus adaptive
educational hypermedia. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A.,
Neidl, W. (eds.): The Adaptive Web: Methods and
Strategies of Web Personalization. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Vol. 4321. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg New York 4 194, 2007.
[38] U. Rueda, M. Larraaga, A. Arruarte and J.A. Elorriaga,
DynMap+: A Concept Mapping Approach to Visualize
Group Student Models, In First European Conference on
Technology Enhanced Learning, ECTEL'06, W. Nejdl & K.
Tochtermann (Eds), p. 383397, Cret, Greece, 2006.
[39] S. Bull, P. Gardner, N. Ahmad, J. Ting and B. Clarke Use
and Trust of Simple Independent Open Learner Models to
Support Learning within and across Courses, User
Modeling2009, UMAP 2009, Houben, G.-J., et al. (Eds.),
LNCS 5535, pp. 4253, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,
2009.