Plagiarism Checker X Originality

Report
Similarity Found: 18%
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Statistics: 953 words Plagiarized / 4724 Total words
Remarks: Medium Plagiarism Detected - Your Document needs Selective
Improvement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( A Review on Content Based SuggestionSystem (November 2016) Deepa
Mandave, Prof. Govind S. Pole AbstractMultiple Options available on the
internet, there is requirement to filter, rank and efficiently provide relevant
datain order to lessen the problem of dataoverload, which has created a
probable problem to many Internet users.
Recommender systems resolve this problem by searching through large
capacity of dynamically generated datato deliver users with
customizedcontent and services. Most of research has been done on the
Sharedand hybrid recommender system, content based system has not been
that extensively researched. This paper presents a literature review of some
papers on content-based proposal system.
The basic practice implemented by a content-based proposal contains in
matching up the features of a user profile in which inclinationsand interests
are stored, with the characteristics of a content object/item, in order to
recommend to the user new interesting items. This research delivers
dataabout developments in content-based proposal systems and offers
experts and researchers with insight and future direction on content-based
proposal systems. Index TermsSharedand hybrid proposal system, contentbased proposal systems, personalized, Proposal systems.
INTRODUCTION E-commerce is very popular because of dataexplosion. Most
studies annoyed to develop the autonomous system which identifies the
user's desires. Most popular tool that helps users to recommend according to
their interests is Proposal System (RS). Proposal systems have become
significant research area since the arrival of the first research paper on
Sharedfiltering in the mid-1990s.

Academic research on proposal systems has increased over the past 15

years, there are shortages in the comprehensive literature review and
grouping of that research [1]. Proposal systems help consumers to find what
they really want. So this meets the desires of consumers in a short time. It
helps consumers to find information, products, or by gathering and exploring
suggestions from other users actions [3].
There are plenty of choices and a slight time to explore them all. Proposal
systems service people make choices in these composite dataspaces.
Proposal systems are a category of datafiltering that represents lists of items
(films, songs, books, videos, images, products, web pages...) which are
similar of user interest. Most popular proposal systems in all over the world
are Amazon, Last.fm, Ulike, iLike, Netflix, Pandora etc.
Simply they match user interest learned from his/her profile with some
reference features and guess the rating that the user would give. Those
features may be from the item data(content-based method) or the user's
social profile (Sharedfiltering method) [4]. The main objective of proposal
systems is to help users to deal with the databurden problem by delivering
customizedrecommendations, content and service.
Proposal systems are progressively being used in E-commerce for
recommending books, music, movies, TV shows or different types of objects
[6]. Proposal systems are essential tools that overcome the dataoverload by
examining through the large set of data and recommending datarelevant to
the user. In general, every proposal system follows a particular process [1] in
order to create product recommendations, see Figure 1.
SharedFiltering, Content based method and Hybrid methods are the
widespread three methods to developing proposal systems. In
SharedFiltering (CF) method, thoughts from users in the form of rankings on
several items are collected. The recommendations generated are based only
on the thoughts of users similar to the active user.
Active user refers to proposal searcher for whom recommendations are
produced. Content based approach proposes items that are matches to the
ones the active user has shown a favorite for in the past rather than on the
favorites of other users[5]. CBF methods are developed for dataretrieval and
datafiltering study.
In the CBF method, each user can work independently and will be
recommended the most closely dataof the objects according to their
request[3]. In this paper, a complete and organized study of content-based
proposal systems is carried out. The purpose is twofold: An overview of stateof-the-art systems, by emphasizing the methods which exposed the most

effective, and the application domains in which they have implemented;

Developments and directions for future study which might lead towards the
next generation of content-based proposal systems.
Approximately all the study has been done on Sharedor hybrid recommender
system but very less work is done on content based proposal system [12].
This paper delivers an overview of content-based proposal systems, with the
objective of imposing a degree of order on the variety of the different
aspects involved in their design and implementation.
The first section of the paper represents the basic concepts and terms of
content based proposal systems, a high level architecture, and their main
advantages and disadvantages. The second section of the paper presents a
review of the state of the art of systems used in numerous application
domains, by comprehensively describing both classical and advanced
methods for representing items and user profiles. The most widely accepted
techniques for learning user profiles are also presented.
The last section of the paper argues developments and future research. /
Figure1. Proposal Process Fundamentals of Content-based Proposal Systems
In Content-based filtering systems, proposal of items is based on descriptions
or content of items rather than other users rankings of the system as shown
in Figure 2.
Content-based filtering method is a domain-dependent algorithm and it
highlights more on the analysis of the characteristics of items in order to
generate recommendations. Content-based filtering system is the most
successful in recommending documents such as web pages, publications,
articles and news etc. In content-based filtering method, prediction is made
based on the user profiles using attributes extracted from the content of the
items the user has calculated in the past. Positively rated objects or items
that got high rank are recommended to the user [9].
Systems realizing a content-based proposal method evaluate a set of articles
and/or descriptions of items rated by a user in the past, and construct a
model or profile of user interests based on the attributes of the objects
ranked by that user. The user profile is a representation of user interests in
structured manner, implemented to predict new interesting items.
The proposal method fundamentally consists in matching up the features of
the user profile against the characteristics of a content object [8]. Contentbased proposal systems (e.g. Last.fm6 and Amazon7) item
features/descriptions to find items that are similar of interest to the user.
Content-based proposal systems (CBRS) filter very big repositories of items
(e.g.

books, articles, news, web pages, TV assets, music tracks) by considering

items previously ranked by a user and constructing a analyze model of user
favorites, called user profile, based on the attributes of the items ranked by
that user. The user profile is then analyzed to recommend new possibly
relevant items. CBRS commonly use textual features to characterize items
and user profiles; therefore they get the usual problems of natural language
ambiguity.
CBF uses diverse types of models to identify match between documents in
order to produce meaningful recommendations. Vector Space Model such as
Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF/IDF) or Probabilistic models
such as Naive Bayes Classifier, Neural Networks or Decision Trees could be
used to construct the relationship between different documents within a
repository.
To learn the underlying model, statistical analysis or machine learning
techniques are used for making recommendation. Content-based filtering
system does not require the profile of other users since they do not impact
recommendation. CBF method has the potential to adjust its
recommendations with changes in user profile within a very little period of
time.
The major drawback of this method is the necessity to have an in deepness
knowledge and description of the attributes of the items in the profile [9].
Recent growth in the field of CBRS through semantic technologies and the
readiness of several open knowledge sources have increased interest in this
field . New research works have presented semantic techniques that move a
keyword based representation of items and user profiles to a concept-based
one [3].
/ Figure 2 Content-based approach A High Level Design of Content-based
Proposal Systems Content-based Filtering systems want correct techniques
for representing the items and generating the user profile, and some
approaches for matching the user profile with the item representation. The
high level design of a content based proposal system is depicted in Figure
3. / Figure2.
High level design of a Content-based Proposal system The proposal process
is completed in three steps, each of which is controlled by a separate
element: CONTENT ANALYZER The main duty of this element is to denote
the content of items (e.g. documents, news, Web pages, articles, product
descriptions, etc.) coming from different datasources in a form fit for the next
processing steps. This element provides the input to the PROFILE LEARNER
and FILTERING COMPONENT.
PROFILE LEARNER This element gathers data descriptive of the user

likings and tries to generalize this data, in order to build the user profile.
Typically, the generalization strategy is recognized through machine learning
methods, which are able to understand a model of user interests starting
from items liked or disliked in the past.
For example, the PROFILE LEARNER of a Web page proposal system can
perform a relevance feedback method in which the learning method pools
vectors of positive and negative instances into a prototype vector
demonstrating the user profile. Training instances are Web pages on which a
positive or negative feedback has been delivered by the user.
FILTERING COMPONENT This element analyze the user profile to propose
relevant items by matching the profile representation against that of items to
be recommended. The outcome is a binary or continuous relevance result
(computed using some similarity metrics), the latter case resulting in a
ordered list of potentially interesting items. In the above mentioned example,
the matching is recognized by computing the cosine similarity between the
prototype vector and the item vectors.
The first step is the one performed by the CONTENT ANALYZER in the
proposal process which commonly derives methods from DataRetrieval
systems. Item content coming from DataSource are treated by the CONTENT
ANALYZER, that extracts features (, n-grams , keywords, concepts, . . . ) from
unstructured text to generate a structured item representation, kept in the
repository Represented Items.
In order to build and update the profile of the active user ua (user for which
recommendations must be provided) her responses to items are gathered in
some way and documented in the repository Feedback. These responses,
called annotations or feedback, together with the associated item
descriptions, are analyzed during the course of learning a model beneficial to
predict the actual relevance of newly presented items. Users feedback can
be recorded using two different techniques.
When a system needs the user to explicitly evaluate items, this method is
generally stated to as explicit feedback; the other method, called implicit
feedback, does not need any active user participation, in the sense that
feedback is derived from observing and analyzing users actions. Explicit
evaluations show how important or interesting an item is to the user.
There are three key methods to derive explicit relevance feedback:
like/dislike items are categorized as relevant or not relevant by
implementing a simple binary ranking scale. ratings a discrete numeric
scale is usually implemented to justice items. hot, lukewarm, or cold; text
comments Comments of items are gathered and offered to the users as a
means of helping the decision-making process.

For example, consumers feedback at Amazon.com or eBay.com might

support users in determining whether an item has been promoted by the
community. Textual comments can overload the active user because she
must analyze each comment to choose if it is positive or negative, and to
what degree. The literature suggests advanced methods from the affective
computing research field to make content-based recommenders able to
automatically complete this type of analysis [8].
Advantages and Disadvantages of Content-based Filtering Content-based
proposal system has several advantages as compared to the Sharedone:
USER INDEPENDENCE - Content-based proposal system analyze solely
rankings provided by the active user to construct her own profile. Instead,
Sharedfiltering methods require rankings from other users in order to identify
the nearest neighbors of the active user.
TRANSPARENCY - How the proposal system works can be denoted by
explicitly listing content attributes or descriptions that produced an item to
happen in the list of recommendations. Those features are signs to decide
whether to trust a recommendation. Conversely, Sharedsystems are black
boxes since the only justification for an item proposal is that strange users
with like tastes liked that item.
NEW ITEM New item cannot be recommended until it is rated by any user
in Sharedproposal system. Content-based proposal does not suffer from this
cold start problem. They are capable of recommending items not yet ranked
by any user. Content-based systems have some limitations: RESTRICTED
CONTENT ANALYSIS In the Content-based systems, recommended objects
have a natural limit in the number and type of attributes that are related,
whether automatically or manually.
Domain knowledge is often desirable, for example, for movie
recommendations, the scheme necessities to recognize the actors and
directors, and sometimes, domain ontologies are also required. SERENDIPITY
- Content-based proposal have no integral method for finding somewhat
unpredicted or unique taste of user. The system recommends items whose
marks are high when matched against the user profile; for example, user has
only ranked movies directed by Stanley Kubrick in the past, she will be
recommended just that type of movies.
NOVEL USER - Enough features have to be gathered before a contentbased proposal system can really know user likings and deliver correct
recommendations. Hence, when few rankings are available, as for a novel
user, the system will not be able to deliver reliable recommendations. In the
following, some approaches for tackling the above stated problems will be
presented.

Content-based Proposal Systems Content-based filtering analyzes the

content of data items to forecast its relevance based on the users profile.
Study on content-based proposal systems happens at the intersection of
many computer science subjects, specifically DataRetrieval and Artificial
Intelligence. From DataRetrieval (IR), study on proposal technologies obtains
that users finding for recommendations are busy in an datapursuing process.
Items to be recommended can be very diverse depending on the number
and types of features used to define them. From an Artificial Intelligence
viewpoint, the proposal job can be cast as a learning problem that analyzes
past dataabout users. User profiles consist of user-specified keywords or
rules, and affect the long term interests of the user.
This commonly includes the application of Machine Learning (ML) methods.
Representation of Item Items to be recommended to the user are denoted by
a set of features, also called characteristics or properties. In most contentbased filtering systems, item properties are textual features collected from
Web pages, emails, news, articles or product attributes.
When learning a user profile, textual features generate a number of
problems due to the natural language ambiguity. The problem is that oldstyle keyword-based profiles are not able to catch the semantics of user
interests because they are mainly driven by a string equivalent operation. If
a string match, or some morphological variant match, is found in both the
profile and the document, the document is considered as relevant.
String matching has problems of: POLYSEMY means one word has multiple
meanings; SYNONYMY means multiple words have same meaning. Due to
synonymy, relevant datacan be lost if the profile does not hold the exact
keywords in the documents. Due to polysemy, wrong documents could be
considered relevant.
To solve those difficulties, Semantic exploration and its integration in
personalization models is one of the most advanced and interesting methods
proposed in literature. Vector Space Model (Keyword-based Model) Maximum
content-based proposal systems use comparatively simple retrieval models,
such as keyword matching or the Vector Space Model (VSM) with basic TF-IDF
weighting.
Generally, each document is denoted as a vector of term weights, where
each weight specifies the degree of association between the document and
the term. Let D = {d1,d2, ...,dN} represent a set of documents or corpus,
and T = {t1, t2, ..., tn} be the dictionary, that is the set of keywords in the
corpus. T is achieved by applying some regular natural language processing
operations, like tokenization, stopwords removal, and stemming.

TF-IDF ?? ?? , ?? ?? =TF ?? ?? , ?? ?? .?????? ?? ?? ?? Where N represents the

number of documents in the corpus, and nk represents the number of
documents in the group in which the term tk happens at least once. To
determine the closeness between two documents, a similarity measure is
needed.
Many similarity metrics have been achieved to describe the closeness of two
vectors; among those metrics, cosine similarity is the most extensively used:
?????? ?? ?? , ?? ?? = ?? ?? ???? . ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? 2 . ?? ?? ???? 2 In contentbased proposal systems depending on VSM, both user profiles and items are
denoted as weighted term vectors.
Cosine similarity is used to compute users interest in a particular item
required for prediction. Survey of Keyword-based Systems Many keywordbased proposal systems have been found in various fields of applications,
such as news, web pages, music, e-commerce, movies, etc. Each domain
represents different problems, that need different solutions.
In the field of food proposal system, Ipek Tatli proposed content-based food
proposal system. It contains three distinct parts; food profiling, user profiling
and recommending foods according to the earlier feedback of the users.
Food domain can be realized as a set of features where each feature is
essentially an ingredient of that food.
Hence, both item and user profiles are stored as vectors of features. It
attempts to discover best matches between the user profile and the food
profiles.TF-IDF distance measure used to calculate the match of two items.
But it gives poor proposal that is evaluation logic may also be leading to
some failures [16]. Keyword-Based TV Program Proposal by Christian
Wartena, et al. has explored keyword-based ranking prediction.
Keywords establish a suitable level of description of an item since keywords
can be given by humans or extracted automatically from one or more texts.
They have presented that for some datasets keyword-based ranking
predictions give very good results, comparable to state-of-the art
Sharedfiltering methods. They have assumed that the cause lies in the
nature of the dataset and the relevance of the area of the item for the
appreciation of the item [18].
There increases a significant interest in using social tags for
recommendation. In the area of social tagging system, Ivn Cantador et al.
proposed several content-based proposal models that make use of user and
item profiles represented as a weighted lists of social tags. The studied
methods are implementations of the Vector Space and Okapi BM25 ranking
models.

Actually, this constructed the proposal models with the whole tag-based
profiles of the training items. It also contains users tag-based profiles formed
by tags annotating the training items. We calculated the proposal system
with the tag-based profiles of the test items.
In the evaluation, they calculated several metrics, and implemented a 5-fold
cross validation procedure. This is simple and effective but the training time
is a critical issue in this system[17]. Ei Hlaing proposed car proposal system
using the relevant words extraction method from users email. This system
adopted the Rule-based approach in Compiling technique.
Setting- free grammar is the most appropriate for relevant words extraction.
This system performs efficient proposal by using proposed key extraction
algorithm, Content-based Filtering (CBF) method and Jaccard Coefficient. This
will help the users who want to buy the car by giving relevant car
information.
This system has the higher precision and less recall than machine learning
method [3]. Most content-based systems are considered as text classifiers
made from training sets containing documents which are either positive or
negative instances of user interests.
Hence, precise recommendations are achieved when large numbers of
examples are available in the training sets, which promise reliable
syntactic indication of user interests. The problem with keyword-based
method is the lack of intelligence. When additional advanced features are
needed, keyword-based methods display their limitations.
If the user, for example likes French impressionism, keyword-based
methods will only discover documents in which the words French and
impressionism happen. More innovative representation approaches are
required in order to prepare content-based proposal systems with semantic
intelligence, which permits going beyond the syntactic indication of user
interests delivered by keywords.
In the next parts, we will test probable ways to fill knowledge in the indexing
phase using ontologies and encyclopedic knowledge sources. Semantic
Analysis using Ontologies Semantic analysis permits learning more correct
profiles that hold references to thoughts defined in external knowledge
bases. The main motivation for this method is the challenge of presenting a
proposal system with the cultural and linguistic background knowledge which
describes the ability of interpreting natural language documents and thinking
on their content.
In this section, a review of the main policies implemented to announce some

semantics in the proposal practice is presented. The description of these

approaches is carried out by considering some conditions: The kind of
knowledge source used (e.g. lexicon, ontology, etc.); The methods
implemented for the annotation or representation of the items; The kind of
content contained within the user profile; The item-profile matching scheme.
In the field of art, Yiwen Wang et al. verified the CHIP demonstrator, called
the Art Recommender" with end users by recommending both semantically
related concepts and artworks features (e.g. creator, material, and subject).
The main aim of the CHIP (Cultural Heritage DataPersonalization) project is to
show how Semantic Web and personalization strategies can be deployed to
improve access to digital gatherings of museums [7]. ANTSREC: A Semantic
Recommender System Based on Ant Colony Meta-Heuristic in Electronic
Commerce by Mojtaba Salehi, et al. proposed a semantic recommender
system based on Ant Colony and Ontology dependencies is used for
enhancement of electronic commerce.
This system includes heuristic, stochastic, reinforcement learning in Ant
Colony theory and semantic dependency in ontology features. The proposed
system is able to recommend similar, complement and bundled items. This
feature can overcome difficulties such as scalability, cold start and scarcity of
data[1].
With the rapid increasing of learning objects (LOs) in a variety of media
formats, it requires to assist learners in finding the appropriate LOs which will
be needed for their learning. Salam Fraihat et al. have proposed a framework
of a semantic proposal system for e-learning in which it will help learners to
discover and select the relevant LOs to their area of interest.
The proposed framework utilizes the intra and extra semantic relationships
between LOs and the learners needs to provide
customizedrecommendations for learners. The semantic proposal algorithm
is based on the extension of the query keywords by using the semantic
relations, concepts and reasoning means in the domain ontology. The
proposed system can be used to reduce the time and effort involved in
finding suitable LOs, and thus, improves the quality of learning [6].
All researches which integrated either linguistic or domain specific
knowledge or both in content-based filtering approaches displayed better
and more precise outcomes compared to traditional content-based methods.
This boosts researchers to plan new filtering methods which formalize and
Settingualize user interests by manipulating external knowledge sources
such as thesauri or ontologies.
Trends and future research Content-based filtering method is a domain-

dependent and it highlights more on the analysis of the features of items to

generate predictions. Content-based filtering technique is the most
successful method in recommending documents such as web pages,
publications and news. CBF technique has the potential to adjust its
recommendations with changes occurs in user profile within a very short
period of time.
CBF uses different types of models to find match between documents to
produce meaningful recommendations like Vector Space Model (keywordbased model) such as Term Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF/IDF).
The problem with this method is the lack of intelligence. When extra
advanced features are required, keyword-based methods display their
limitations.
More advanced techniques are required to prepare content-based proposal
system with semantic intelligence. Semantic analysis permits learning
more precise profiles that contain references to aspects defined in external
knowledge bases. The main inspiration for this method is the challenge of
providing a proposal system with the cultural and linguistic background
knowledge which describes the ability of interpreting natural language
documents and arguing on their content.
Ontologies play the major role of formalizing the application domain, being
manipulated for the semantic descriptions of the items and for the
representation of the concepts and associations recognized in the domain.
Explicit Semantic Analysis (ESA) is a method able to deliver a fine-grained
semantic representation of natural language texts in a high-dimensional
space of natural concepts derived from Wikipedia.
The current issues in advanced text representation using sources of world
knowledge, such as Wikipedia, have been focused, though they have not yet
used in the Setting of learning user profiles. conclusion In this paper we
reviewed the area of content-based proposal systems, by providing an
overview of the most significant aspects describing that type of systems.
Though there is a group of proposal systems in different domains, they share
in common a method for representing items to be recommended and user
profiles.
The paper argues the main issues related to the representation of items. We
explored the main content proposal systems, by underlining the reasons for
which a more complex semantic analysis of content is required in order to
go beyond the syntactic indication of user interests provided by keywords.
A review of the main approaches implemented to present some semantics in
the proposal process is carried out, by delivering evidence of the primary role
of linguistic knowledge; the last section of the paper is dedicated to the

discussion of the main developments and research for the next generation of
content-based proposal systems. In conclusion, all studies which
incorporated either linguistic or domain specific knowledge or both in
content-based filtering methods provided better and more accurate results
compared to traditional content-based methods.
This inspires researchers to design new filtering methods which formalize
and Settingualize user interests by using external knowledge sources such as
thesauri or ontologies. Acknowledgment I would like to express my deep
sense of gratitude towards my guide Prof. G. S. Pole for his support,
continuous volunteered guidance and the tremendous contribution of being
so understanding and helpful throughout the research.
References Mojtaba Salehi, Abdolhossein Fathi and Fardin Abdali-Mohammadi
, ANTSREC: A Semantic Recommender System Based on Ant Colony MetaHeuristic in Electronic Commerce, International Journal of Advanced Science
and Technology, Vol. 56, July, 2013. Michael J. Pazzani and Daniel
Billsus ,Content-based Recommendation Systems. Pasquale
Lops ,Semantics-aware Content-based Recommender Systems. Salam
Fraihat, Qusai Shambour,A Framework of Semantic Recommender System
for e-Learning.
Punam Bedi, Ravish Sharma, Trust based recommender system using ant
colony for trust computation, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012)
11831190. Yiwen Wang, Natalia Stash, Lora Aroyo, Laura Hollink, and Guus
Schreiber Using Semantic Relations for Content-based Recommender
Systems in Cultural Heritage. Yiwen Wang Natalia Stash Lora Aroyo Laura
Hollink Guus Schreiber ,Semantic Relations in Contentbased Recommender
Systems.
Pasquale Lops, Marco de Gemmis and Giovanni Semeraro ,Content-based
Recommender Systems: State of the Art and Trends. F.O. Isinkaye , Y.O.
Folajimi , B.A. Ojokoh, REVIEW Recommendation systems: Principles,
methods and evaluation, Egyptian Informatics Journal (2015) 16, 261273.
Deuk Hee Park, Hyea Kyeong Kim, Young Choi, Jae Kyeong Kim, A Review
and Classification of Recommender Systems Research, 2011 International
Conference on Social Science and Humanity.
RVVSV Prasad and V Valli Kumari, ,A CATEGORICAL REVIEW OF
RECOMMENDER SYSTEMS, International Journal of Distributed and Parallel
Systems (IJDPS) Vol.3, No.5, September 2012. Parul, Kavita
khanna ,Literature Survey: Recommender Systems ,IJETMAS, March 2015,
Volume 3 Special Issue, ISSN 2349-4476 Amir Hossein Nabizadeh Rafsanjani,
Naomie Salim, Atae Rezaei Aghdam, Karamollah Bagheri
Fard ,Recommendation Systems: a review , International Journal of
Computational Engineering Research||Vol, 03||Issue, 5|| Daniar

Asanov ,Algorithms and Methods in Recommender Systems.

Research-Paper Recommender Systems: A Literature Survey ,Joeran Beel,
Bela Gipp, Stefan Langer, and Corinna Breitinger. Ipek TATLI ,Food
Recommendation System, 1395557, June2009. Ivn Cantador, Alejandro
Bellogn, David Vallet ,Content-based Recommendation in Social Tagging
Systems. Christian Wartena, Wout Slakhorst, Martin Wibbels, Zeno
Gantner,Christoph Freudenthaler, Chris Newell, Lars SchmidtThieme ,Keyword-Based TV Program Recommendation.
Sweta Sarkar, Pritha Ghosh ,A Hybrid Collaborative Filtering Approach for
Recommendations ,IJETAE, ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified
Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2, February 2015. LIWEI LIU, FREDDY LECUE,
INIKOLAY MEHANDJIEV ,Semantic Content-based Recommendation of
Software Services using Context .
INTERNET SOURCES:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0% - Empty
0% - https://www.researchgate.net/publication
0% - http://www.ics.uci.edu/~welling/teaching
0% - http://www.telecomwatch.in/newsflash/new
0% - https://www.scribd.com/document/31137948
0% - http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/CCSWP179.html
0% - http://spotidoc.com/doc/858708/communica
0% - https://zh.scribd.com/document/58181998/
0% - http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/r
0% - http://www.slideshare.net/xamat/recommen
0% - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=5025
0% - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
0% - http://cdc2016.ieeecss.org/workshops.php
0% - http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/
0% - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=977394
0% - https://es.scribd.com/doc/19746809/Threa
0% - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10
0% - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
0% - http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007
0% - https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/
0% - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=340120
0% - http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applic
0% - https://www.researchgate.net/publication
1% - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
0% - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Man
0% - https://www.scribd.com/doc/91397843/Pers
0% - http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2835776.28358
0% - http://josquin.cs.depaul.edu/~rburke/pub

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommende
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=163973
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1135777.11358
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tra
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/bl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborat
http://www.finra.org/investors/reality-i
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=213733
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fed
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=149613
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.0166v1
http://www.academia.edu/5003275/IOSR_Jou
https://issuu.com/europak/docs/how-to-us
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fed
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/amer
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=298148
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_T
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fed
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192http://www.ijsrd.com/articles/IJSRDV3I14
http://www.science.gov/topicpages/o/open
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ffde/fb
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23095_01/Plat
http://www2.cit.cornell.edu/computer/rob
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fed
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library
http://osec.doc.gov/webresources/accessi
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/showciting?c
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~welling/teaching
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kel
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=143896
http://www.patents.com/us-4996642.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_f
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library
http://express-helpline.com/selectprice_
http://teachersinstitute.yale.edu/curric
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1454008.14540
http://wikitravel.org/en/Italy
http://www.exa.unicen.edu.ar/catedras/kn
http://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/analyt

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/sum
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zhi
http://ijsetr.org/wp-content/uploads/201
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-3
http://thesai.org/feed/oai
http://link.springer.com/referenceworken
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/inderjit/
http://www.academia.edu/5648046/Lexiconhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kha
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10115https://www.irjet.net/archives/V3/i5/IRJ
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007
http://www.ijcstjournal.org/volume-4/iss
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1141277.11416
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eim
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Pr
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_T
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=145811
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2684
http://lucene.apache.org/core/
http://www.academia.edu/1030398/Semantic
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12652https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ira
https://www.carbuyingtips.com/carintro.h
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=8001
http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text
https://www.scribd.com/document/39877078
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/teach/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joh
http://faculty.washington.edu/jtennis/Pu
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/sum
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/sum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect
http://www.jsoftware.us/vol10/vol10no3-c
http://www.academia.edu/8388523/A_knowle
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Qus
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007
http://machinedesign.com/archive/micropo
https://www.researchgate.net/publication

1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/ar
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art
http://www.cs.uccs.edu/~jkalita/work/reu
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joh
http://link.springer.com/referenceworken
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dor
http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/people/shau
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introducti
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/3-540-4
http://www.iceis.org/Abstracts/2015/ICEI
http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-lite
https://www.scribd.com/document/51313112
http://www.academia.edu/4591514/Semantic
http://users.utu.fi/micnel/thesis/Chapte
http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/
http://www.academia.edu/1019613/An_ontol
https://www.business-case-analysis.com/a
http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/~ashish/proj
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Far
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fed
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
http://www.academia.edu/1411697/Enhancin
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/sum
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2905
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Te
http://ijssh.org/
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V2/i9/IRJ
http://www.ijceronline.com/papers/Vol3_i
http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essayhttps://www.gipp.com/wp-content/papercit
http://f3.hs-hannover.de/personen/lehren
http://www.ijetae.com/files/Volume5Issue
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=191267