The Web information is too heterogeneous that users have difficulties to retrieve their needed information: text, image or video. Indeed, the collaborative work presents one solution proposed to solve this problem. Collaborative retrieval enables the retrieval histories’ sharing between users having the same profile across multiple tools such as annotations. However the user has always problems in choosing the terms to form his query. This paper has proposed collaborative Information Retrieval Model based on Fuzzy Confidence Network. Our approach allows the detection of relevant annotations to a given evidence source. These annotations are next filtered to determine which are relevant to consider them as a new source of information that describes the document used to improve collaborative retrieval performance. We then measure the semantic relationships between terms which will be translated by the propagation of confidence. Experiments were conducted on different queries, showing very encouraging results that could reach an improvement rate.
ArminH., StefanK., MarkusJ. and AndreasD., Towards collaborative information retrieval: Three approaches. In Ingrid Renz Jurgen Frank, Gholamreza Nakhaeizadeh, editor, Text Mining – Theoretical aspects and Applications. Physica-Verlag, 2003.
2.
AuerS., BizerC., KobilarovG., LehmannJ., CyganiakR. and IvesZ., DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. In Proc of ISWC 2007, Busan, Korea, 2007.
3.
Baeza-YatesR. and Ribeiro-NetoB., Modern Information Retrieval. In Addison-WesleyNew York City, NYACM Press, 1999.
4.
BenderskyM. and CroftW.B., Analysis of long queries in a large scale search log. pp, In Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on Web Search Click Data, 2009, pp. 8–14.
5.
Bouchon-MeunierB., TijusC.A. and OmriM.N., Fuzzy sets system for user’s assistance: How Sifade diagnoses user’s goal. The Second Wold Congress on Expert Systems: Moving towards Expert Systems Globally in the 21st Century. Macmillian ed. CD Rom. Estoril, Lisbonne, 1993.
6.
BouramoulA., KholladiM.K. and DoanB.L., Using context to improve the evaluation of information retrieval systems, In International Journal of Database Management Systems (IJDMS) – ISSN: 0975-59853(2) (2011), 22–39. AIRCC – US.
7.
ChangY.K., CirilloC. and RazonJ., Evaluation of feedback retrieval using modified freezing, residual collection and test and control groups, The SMART Retrieval System- Experiments in Automatic Document Processing, 1971, pp. 355–370.
8.
CuiH., WenJ.R. and NieJ.Y., Probabilistic query expansion using query logs. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on World Wide Web, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: ACM Press, 2002, pp. 325–332.
9.
CumminsR. and O’RiordanC., The effect of query length on normalisation in information retrieval. In Conference: Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science - 20th Irish Conference, AICS 2009, Dublin, Ireland, 2009.
10.
DiamadisE.T. and PolyzosG.C., Efficient cooperative searching on the Web: System design and evaluation, In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies61 (2004), 699–724.
11.
FkihF. and OmriM.N., Complex terminology extraction model from unstructured web text based linguistic and statistical knowledge, In International Journal of Information Retrieval Research (IJIRR)2(3) (2012), 1–18.
12.
GrefenstetteG., Conquering language: Using NLP on a massive scale to build high dimensional language models from the web. p, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 2007, p. 35.
13.
HarbH.M., KhaledM.F. and NagdyM.N., Semantic retrieval approach for web documents, In International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA)2(9) (2011), 11–75.
14.
KhelifK., Dieng-KuntzR. and BarbryP., An ontology-based approach to support text mining and information retrieval in the biological domain, Special Issue on Anthologies and their Applications of the Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS)13(12) (2007), 1881–1907.
15.
KumaranG. and AllanJ., A Case For Shorter Queries, and Helping Users Create Them, In HLT-NAACL:North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007, pp. 220–227.
16.
LazonderA., Do two heads search better than one? Effects of student collaboration on web search behaviour and search outcomes, In British Journal of Educational Technology2005.
17.
LinH. and WangL., Query expansion for document retrieval based on fuzzy rules and user relevance feedback techniques, In Proceedings Expert Systems with Applications31(2) (2006), 397–405.
18.
LiomaC., MoensM.F. and AzzopardiL., Collaborative annotation for pseudo relevance feedback, In ECIR workshop on exploiting semantic annotation in information retrieval (ESAIR 2008).
19.
LuhnH., The automatic creation of literature abstracts, In IBM Journal of Research and Development2(2) (1958), 159–165and 317.
20.
ManningN. and SchützeH., Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, United States, 1999.
21.
MenegonD., MizzaroS., NazziE. and VassenaL., Benchmark evaluation of context-aware Web search. In Workshop on Contextual Information Access, Seeking and Retrieval Evaluation (In conjunction with European Conference on Information retrieval - ECIR), Toulouse, France, Springer, 2009.
22.
MokhtariN. and Dieng-KuntzR., Extraction et exploitation des annotations contextuelles, In Proceedings Extraction et Gestion des Connaissances EGC’2008.
23.
NaderiH., RumplerB. and PinonJ.M., An Efficient Collaborative Information Retrieval System by Incorporating the User Profile, Adaptive Multimedia Retrieval: User, Context, and Feedback Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2007.
24.
NaouarF., HlaouaL. and OmriM.N., Possibilistic model for relevance feedback in collaborative information retrieval, In International Journal of Web Application IJWA4(2) (2012), 78–86.
25.
NaouarF., HlaouaL. and OmriM.N., Relevance Feedback for Collaborative Retrieval Based on Semantic Annotations. In Information and Knowledge Engineering IKE’13 Las Végas, 2013, pp. 54–60.
26.
NavigliR. and VelardiP., An analysis of ontology-based query expansion strategies. In Proceeding of the Workshop on Adaptive Text Extraction and Mining, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2003.
27.
LopesC.T., Context Features and their use in Information Retrieval, In Third BCS-IRSG Symposium on Future Directions in Information Access, Padua, Italy, 2009.
28.
OmriM.N., Pertinent knowledge extraction from a semantic network: Application of fuzzy sets theory, In International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools (IJAIT)13(3) (2004), 705–719.
29.
OmriM.N., Effects of terms recognition mistakes on requests processing for interactive information retrieval, In International Journal of Information Retrieval Research (IJIRR)2(3) (2012), 19–35.
30.
OmriM.N., UrdapilletaI., BarthelemyJ., Bouchon-MeunierB. and TijusC.A., Semantic scales and fuzzy processing for sensorial evaluation studies. Information Processing And Management of Uncertainty In Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU), Madrid Spain, 1996, pp. 715–719.
31.
RajmanM. and BonneT.A., Corpora-base linguistics: New tools for natural language processing. In 1st Annual Conference of the Association for Global Strategic Information, Bad Kreuznach, Germany, 1992.
32.
RobertsonS.E. and WalkerS., On relevance weights with little relevance information. In 20th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ACM Press, 1997, pp. 16–24.
33.
RuthvenI. and LalmasM., A survey on the use of relevance feedback for information access systems, In The Knowledge Engineering Review18(2) (2003), 95–145.
34.
TamineL., BoughanemM. and DaoudM., Evaluation of contextual information retrieval effectiveness: Overview of issues and research, In Journal of Knowledge and Information Systems24(1) (2010), 1–34. Springer, Londres, UK.
