Locating relevant text within XML documents

ABSTRACT

Traditional document retrieval has shown to be a competitive approach in XML element retrieval, which is counter-intuitive since the element retrieval task requests all and only relevant document parts to be retrieved. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of document and element retrieval, highlights the relative strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, and explains the relative effectiveness of document retrieval approaches at element retrieval tasks.

REFERENCES

• 1: Ludovic Denoyer , Patrick Gallinari, The Wikipedia XML corpus, ACM SIGIR Forum, v.40 n.1, June 2006 [doi>10.1145/1147197.1147210]
• 2: INEX. INitiative for the Evaluation of XML Retrieval, 2007. http://inex.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de/
• 3: J. Kamps, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and B. Sigurbjörnsson. The importance of morphological normalization for XML retrieval. In Proceedings of the First INEX Workshop, pages 41--48. ERCIM, 2003.
• 4: Jaap Kamps , Mounia Lalmas , Jovan Pehcevski, Evaluating relevant in context: document retrieval with a twist, Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, July 23-27, 2007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1277741.1277890]
• 5: B. Sigurbjörnsson, J. Kamps, and M. de Rijke. An Element-Based Approach to XML Retrieval. In INEX 2003 Workshop Proceedings, pages 19--26, 2004.
• 6: J. A. Thom and J. Pehcevski. How well does best in context reflect ad hoc XML retrieval. In Pre-Proceedings of INEX 2007, pages 124--125, 2007.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.3 Information Search and Retrieval

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.7 Digital Libraries

General Terms:
Experimentation, Measurement, Performance

Keywords:
XML retrieval, focused retrieval, passage retrieval