mapping n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Mapping PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Mapping

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 5

Mapping - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 89 Views
  • Uploaded on

Breakout session on. Mapping. Lead: All Participants: Andre Skupin, Peter Hook, Loet Leydesdorff, Katy Borner, Ned Talley, Kevin Boyack. State of the Art. Map vs. classification Partition vs. Hierarchy Visualizations make it possible for human cognition to construct knowledge.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mapping' - zelia


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
mapping

Breakout session on

Mapping

Lead: All

Participants: Andre Skupin, Peter Hook, Loet Leydesdorff, Katy Borner, Ned Talley, Kevin Boyack

state of the art
State of the Art

Map vs. classification

Partition vs. Hierarchy

Visualizations make it possible for human cognition to construct knowledge.

Maps suggest proximity.

Maps are useful as reference frames, e.g., Spotlight circle map. Easy reference frameworks are good.

existing problems
Existing Problems
  • Interoperability, e.g., NCBO
  • Intercomparability – compare different self-contained maps.
  • Data quality, e.g., define evaluation criteria
  • Map quality, e.g., legibility, clustering quality, proximity preservation, proper application of semiotic principles.
  • Map purpose: Alan MacEachren’s Map cube – communication (of something the map maker knew, public) vs. exploration/discovery (nobody knows yet, private). Along this continuum we find different maps.
  • Take better known entities and replicate real word for general public, e.g., MDS for city Euclidean distances to create a geo map.
  • Standards of convenience are bad. Mercator is good for sea navigation but bad in Google maps, etc.
  • How to explain dynamics of knowledge? How to visualize temporal evolution. Use maps to get intuition then go back to data to get quantitative info.
  • Huge confusion in terms of topologies: Factorial vs. relational.
  • Cannot separate data analysis and visualization, e.g., too close clusters should be spread out (accuracy decreases) to make them legible. Looks backward to the data and forward to the map usage.
proposed solutions
Proposed Solutions
  • Different purposes demand different projections.
  • There could be a single reference system.
  • Need heterarchy, different views of data.
  • Compare different layouts, sim measures.

1. Measure

 size and shape

2. Standardize

  • reference system

3. Reduce Dimensionality

 domain-ignorant

4. Reproject

 domain-appropriate

5. Overlay

 look for patterns

associated challenges and opportunities
Associated Challenges and Opportunities
  • Social network community has standard datasets. Can we have one besides ISI, Scopus (everybody downloads/studies different subset/format). Journal citation dataset, paper dataset, Conference proceedings and attendance/sessions, VIVO? (Need full text)
  • Precision, recall – what is our gold standard.
  • One purpose of standards is to empower non-experts to create and read maps.
  • Tools like Pajek, Sci2 as de facto standard— .net, BC measure, etc.
  • Accuracy vs. usability
    • Standardized residuals of the Chi^2
    • MDS: specify stress factor
    • Factor analysis: give variance