1. http://www.clef-campaign.org/2009

2.  Ad-hoc - This track tests mono- and cross- language text retrieval. Tasks in 2009 will test both CL and IR aspects in a multilingual context.  TEL@CLEF will evaluate retrieval algorithms on multilingual collections of catalog records; as in 2008, the collections are derived from the English, French and German archives of The European Library; a query expansion pilot task is also offered  Robust-WSD aims at assessing whether word sense disambiguated data does impact on system performance; mono- and bilingual tasks will be offered on an English WSD collection.

3.  Interactive Cross-Language Retrieval (iCLEF) Interactive retrieval of images using the Flickr database (www.flickr.com) will again be studied.  Flickr is a dynamic, image database with labels provided by creators and viewers in a self- organizing ontology of tags.  This labeling activity is naturally multilingual, reactive, and cooperative. The focus is on measuring relevance, user confidence/satisfaction and user behaviour on a large scale. To serve this purpose, a single multilingual interface to Flickr will be user by all participants. Coordinators are UNED (ES), SICS (SE) & U. Sheffield (UK). See http://nlp.uned.es/iCLEF for details.

4.  Multiple Language Question Answering (QA@CLEF):  ResPubliQA: Given a pool of 500 independent natural language questions, systems must return the passage (not the exact answer) that answers each question from the JRC-Acquis collection of EU documentation. Both questions and documents are translated and aligned for a subset of languages (at least Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish). See http://celct.isti.cnr.it/ResPubliQA/ http://celct.isti.cnr.it/ResPubliQA/  QAST: The aim of the third QAST exercise is to evaluate QA technology in a real multilingual speech scenario in which written and oral questions (factual and definitional) in different languages are formulated against a set of audio recordings related to speech events in those languages. The proposed scenario is the European Parliament sessions in English, Spanish and French. See http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~qast/2009/ http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~qast/2009/  GikiCLEF: Following the previous GikiP pilot at GeoCLEF 2008, the task focuses on open list questions over Wikipedia that require geographic reasoning, complex information extraction, and cross- lingual processing, at least for Dutch, English, German, Norwegian, Portuguese and Romanian. See http://www.linguateca.pt/GikiCLEF/http://www.linguateca.pt/GikiCLEF/

5.  Cross-Language Image Retrieval (ImageCLEF)  This track evaluates retrieval from visual collections; both text and visual retrieval techniques are exploitable. Five challenging tasks are foreseen:  multilingual ad-hoc retrieval from a photo collection concentrating on diversity in the results;  retrieval from a large scale, heterogeneous collection of Wikipedia images with user-generated textual metadata, and queries in several languages;  detection of semantic categories from robotic images (non- annotated collection, concepts to be detected). Results of a visual and a text retrieval system will be made available to participants.  Track coordinators are U. Sheffield (UK), U. Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (CH), Oregon Health and Science U. (US), RWTH Aachen (DE), U. Geneva (CH), CWI (NL), IDIAP (CH). See also: http://www.imageclef.org/http://www.imageclef.org/

6.  Multilingual Information Filtering (INFILE@CLEF)INFILE@CLEF  INFILE (information filtering evaluation) extends the TREC 2002 filtering track as follows: it uses a corpus of 100,000 Agence France Press comparable newswires for Arabic, English and French; Evaluation is performed using an automatic querying of test systems with a simulated user feedback. Each system can use the feedback at any time to increase performance. Test systems will provide boolean decisions for each document and filter profile. A curve of the evolution of efficiency will be computed along with more classical measures tested in TREC. INFILE is also open to monolingual participation. Coordinators are CEA (FR), U. Lille (FR), ELDA (FR). See http://www.infile.org/http://www.infile.org/

7.  Cross-Language Video Retrieval (VideoCLEF)  VideoCLEF offers classification and retrieval tasks on a video collection containing episodes of dual language television programming. The collection will extend the Dutch/English corpus used for the 2008 VideoCLEF pilot track. Task participants will be provided with speech recognition transcripts, metadata and shot-level keyframes for the video data. Two classification tasks will be evaluated: "Subject Classification", which involves automatically tagging videos with subject labels, and "Affect and Appeal", which involves classifying videos according to characteristics beyond their semantic content. A semantic keyframe extraction task and an exercise on identifying related English-language resources to support viewer comprehension of Dutch-language video are also planned. The track is coordinated by Dublin City University (IE) and Delft University of Technology (NL). See http://www.cdvp.dcu.ie/VideoCLEF http://www.cdvp.dcu.ie/VideoCLEF

8.  Intellectual Property (CLEF-IP) – New this Year  The CLEF IP track in 2009 will utilize a collection of more than 1M patent documents mainly derived from EPO sources, the collection will cover English French and German with at least 100,000 documents in each language. Queries and relevance judgements will produced by two methods. The first is using queries produced by Intellectual Property Experts and reviewed by them in a fairly conventional way. The second is an automatic method using patent citations from seed patents. Search results will be reviewed to ensure the majority of test and training queries produce results in more than one language. We will primarily report results retrieving across all three languages. In 2009 we will stick to the Cranfield evaluation model: in subsequent years we expect to offer refined retrieval process models and assessment tools.  The track is coordinated by: Information Retrieval Facility & Matrixware (AT) See www.ir-facility.org/the_irf/current- projects/clef-ip09-track/www.ir-facility.org/the_irf/current- projects/clef-ip09-track/

9.  Log File Analysis (LogCLEF) – New this Year  LogCLEF deals with the analysis of queries as expression of user behavior. The goal is the analysis and classification of queries in order to improve search systems. LogCLEF has two tasks:  Log Analysis and Geographic Query Identification (LAGI): The recognition of the geographic component within a query stream is a key problem for geographic information retrieval (GIR). Geographic queries require specific treatment and often a geographically oriented output (e.g. a map). The task is to (1) classify geographic queries and (2) identify their geographic and non-geographic elements. A real search engine log file and logs from The European Library (TEL) will be used.  Log Analysis for Digital Societies (LADS): This task will use logs from The European Library (TEL) and intends to analyze user behavior with a focus on multilingual search. The task is open to different approaches. Potential targets are query reformulation, multilingual search behavior and community identification.  The coordinators are: U. Hildesheim (DE), U. Padua (IT), Mitre Corp. (US). See http://www.uni-hildesheim.de/logclef/http://www.uni-hildesheim.de/logclef/

10.  Grid Experiments (Grid@CLEF) Multilingual information access (MLIA) is increasingly part of many complex systems, such as digital libraries, enterprise portals, Web search engines. But do we really know how MLIA components (stemmers, IR models, relevance feedback, translation techniques, etc.) behave with respect to languages? Grid@CLEF is launching a cooperative effort where a series of large-scale, systematic grid experiments will aim at improving our comprehension of MLIA systems and gaining an exhaustive picture of their behaviour with respect to languages. Participants will be asked to take part in a series of experiments that have been carefully designed to ensure that the tested MLIA components are really comparable over groups and differences come only from the languages and tasks at hand. Task Coordinators are U. Padua (IT) and NIST (US). Details available at http://ims.dei.unipd.it/gridclef/(Grid@CLEFhttp://ims.dei.unipd.it/gridclef

11.  16 trackuri – 13 grupe  Pot exista interschimbări de persoane între grupe  Java  Arhitectură web