Call for Papers: ICPP 2011 (September 13-16, 2011, Taipei, Taiwan)

2010-09-30 Thread Robert C. Hsu 

CALL for PAPERS and WORKSHOPS
==

The 40th International Conference on Parallel Processing 
(ICPP-2011)
September 13-16, 2011
Taipei, Taiwan
http://www.icpp-2011.org


Scope
==
The International Conference on Parallel Processing provides a forum
for engineers and scientists in academia, industry and government to
present their latest research findings in all aspects of parallel and
distributed computing.

Main Theme: Cloud Computing

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
‧ Architecture
‧ Algorithms Design and Parallelization
‧ Cloud Computing
‧ Cluster and Grid Computing
‧ Compilers, Prog. Models and Languages
‧ Mobile Computing and Networks
‧ Multi-core and Parallel Systems
‧ P2P Computing and Services
‧ Performance and Modeling
‧ OS and Runtime Technology
‧ Wireless/Sensor Networks and Pervasive Computing


Paper Submission
==
Paper submissions should be formatted according to the IEEE standard
double-column format with a font size 10 pt or larger. Each paper is
strictly limited to 10 pages in length. We will not accept any paper
which, at the time of submission, is under review for or has already
been published (or accepted) for publication in another conference or
journal. 


Publication
=
Proceedings of the conference and workshops will be
archived in IEEE Digital Library.

A special issue of The Computer Journal is planned based on selected
papers from this conference.


Workshops

Workshops will be held from September 13th to 16th. 
Workshop proposals should be submitted to the Workshops Co-Chairs
Jang-Ping Sheu (she...@cs.nthu.edu.tw) and
Cho-Li Wang (clw...@cs.hku.hk).


Important Dates
=
Paper Submission Deadline: February 24, 2011
Author Notification: May 25, 2011
Final Manuscript Due: June 28, 2011
Workshop Submission: December 1, 2010


Organizers
=
General Co-Chairs
Wen-Tsuen Chen, National Tsing Hua Univ., Taiwan
Xiaodong Zhang, Ohio State University, USA

Program Co-Chairs
Guang R. Gao, University of Delaware, USA
Yu-Chee Tseng, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan

Further Information
For Further Information please contact: icpp2...@gmail.com

Call for Papers - MUE 2011 (Crete, Greece, June 28-30, 2010)

2010-09-30 Thread Robert C. Hsu 

[Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this email] 
*** IEEE/FTRA MUE-2011 CFP * 


   The 5th IEEE/FTRA International Conference on 
 Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (MUE2011)


   http://www.ftrg.org/mue2011

 Crete, Greece, June 28-30, 2010
Published by IEEE




-
Important Dates
-
Workshop/SI Proposal Due: November 1, 2010 
Paper Submission deadline   : January 3, 2011
Acceptacne Notification : March 30, 2011  
Camera-ready Due: April 15, 2011  
Presenting Author Registration Due  : April 30, 2011 
Conference Dates: June 28-30, 2011 

---
Special Issues
---

After conference, special issues of international journals with high qualities will be arranged for selected papers as follows.
 
- International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing - Inderscience (SCIE)  http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=145



In addition, good papers from Korean authors will be recommended to international journals indexed by KCI-E in NRF-K.
 
- Journal of Information Processing Systems (JIPS)
   http://jips.kips.or.kr/


-
Paper Submission and Proceeding
-

All accepted papers will be included in the conference proceeding published by IEEE Press (IEEE eXpress Conference Publishing group)
and will be included in the IEEE Xplorer. 

Please use the IEEE Conference Proceedings format (US letter size, available for download here: IEEE Manuscript Templates for Conference Proceedings) for submission. 

MUE 2011's submission web site : http://www.editorialsystem.net/mue2011/ 








-
Overview
-

The new multimedia standards (for example, MPEG-21) facilitate the seamless integration of multiple modalities into interoperable
multimedia frameworks, transforming the way people work and interact with multimedia data. These key technologies and multimedia solutions interact
and collaborate with each other in increasingly effective ways, contributing to the multimedia revolution and having a significant impact across
a wide spectrum of consumer, business, healthcare, education, and governmental domains. 

This conference provides an opportunity for academic and industry professionals to discuss recent progress in the area of multimedia
and ubiquitous environment including models and systems, new directions, novel applications associated with the utilization and acceptance of ubiquitous computing devices and systems.

The goals of this conference are to provide a complete coverage of the areas outlined and to bring together the researchers from 
academic and industry as well as practitioners to share ideas, challenges, and solutions relating to the multifaceted aspects of this field.


---
Topics  
---

We are inviting new and unpublished papers on, but not limited to, the following topics: 

Track 1. Ubiquitous Computing and Beyond
  - Ubiquitous Computing and Technology 
  - Context-Aware Ubiquitous Computing
  - Parallel/Distributed/Grid Computing
  - Novel Machine Architectures
  - Semantic Web and Knowledge Grid
  - Smart Home and Generic Interfaces

Track 2. Multimedia Modeling and Processing
  - AI and Soft Computing in Multimedia   
  - Computer Graphics and Simulation
  - Multimedia Information Retrieval (images, videos, hypertexts, etc.)
  - Internet Multimedia Mining
  - Medical Image and Signal Processing
  - Multimedia Indexing and Compression 
  - Virtual Reality and Game Technology
  - Current Challenges in Multimedia

Track 3. Ubiquitous Services and Applications
  - Protocols for Ubiquitous Services
  - Ubiquitous Database Methodologies
  - Ubiquitous Application Interfaces
  - IPv6 Foundations and Applications
  - Smart Home Network Middleware   
  - Ubiquitous Sensor Networks / RFID
  - U-Commerce and Other Applications   
  - Databases and Data Mining

Track 4  Multimedia Services and Applications
  - Multimedia RDBMS Platforms 
  - Multimedia in Telemedicine
  - Multimedia Embedded Systems   
  - Entertainment Industry
  - E-Commerce and E-Learning   
  - Novel Multimedia Applications
  - Computer Graphics

Track 5. Multimedia and Ubiquitous Security
  - Security in Commerce and Industry  
  - Security in Ubiquitous Databases
  - Key Manag

Re: Correct Usage of rdfs:idDefinedBy in Vocabulary Specifications with a Hash-based URI Pattern

2010-09-30 Thread Martin Hepp 

Hi Kingsley,
Thanks - that is what I had assumed.

Note, however, the majority of the Web vocabularies use the same URI  
for the entity name reference and the descriptor reference, see the  
link provided by Michael Hausenblas:


http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=45

and in particular the little survey by Richard Cyganiak posted on that  
page.


I personally would argue that in the case of ontologies /  
vocabularies, the conceptual difference between the entity and the  
descriptor is a lot less significant than when it comes to data, since  
an ontology is, by definition, a specification, i.e. a document.


So both patterns should work in practice, as long as the URI for the  
owl:Ontology instance is the same as the URI used in conjunction with  
rdfs:isDefinedBy.


Martin




On 30.09.2010, at 12:59, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 9/30/10 3:06 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:

Dear all:

We use rdfs:isDefinedBy in all of our vocabularies (*) for linking  
between the conceptual elements and their specification.


Now, there is a subtle question:

Let's assume we have an ontology with the main URI

   http://purl.org/vso/ns

All conceptual elements are defined as hash fragment URIs (URI  
references), e.g.


   http://purl.org/vso/ns#Bike

The ontology itself (the instance of owl:Ontology) has the URI

   http://purl.org/vso/ns#

  a owl:Ontology ;
   owl:imports  ;
   dc:title "VSO: The Vehicle Sales Ontology for Semantic Web-based  
E-Commerce"@en .


So we have two URIs for the ontology:

1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# for the ontology as an abstract artefact
2. http://purl.org/vso/ns for the syntactical representation of the  
ontology (its serialization)


Yes, you have two HTTP URIs associated with the Ontology. One is the  
"Name" of the Ontology Entity (Thing) and the other is the  
"Address" (URL) of the Ontology Descriptor Resource. Thus:


1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# -- Entity Name Reference
2. http://purl.org/vso/ns -- Descriptor Resource Address Reference .



Shall the rdfs:isDefinedBy statements refer to #1 or #2 ?

#1
vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
   rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
   rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
   rdfs:isDefinedBy  . <===

#2
vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
   rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
   rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
   rdfs:isDefinedBy  . <===


I had assumed they shall refer to #1, but that caused some debate  
within our group ;-)


You refer to Entities (Things) by Name Reference for Linked Data to  
work i.e. Names resolve to Descriptor Resources which may be  
serialized from Linked Data Server to User Agent using a variety of  
data formats such as: HTML+RDFa, RDF/XML, N3/Turtle, N-Triples, TriX  
etc..


Opinions?


Also cc'd in the pedantic web folks for comments :-)



Best

Martin






--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Correct Usage of rdfs:idDefinedBy in Vocabulary Specifications with a Hash-based URI Pattern

2010-09-30 Thread Kingsley Idehen 

 On 9/30/10 3:06 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:

Dear all:

We use rdfs:isDefinedBy in all of our vocabularies (*) for linking 
between the conceptual elements and their specification.


Now, there is a subtle question:

Let's assume we have an ontology with the main URI

http://purl.org/vso/ns

All conceptual elements are defined as hash fragment URIs (URI 
references), e.g.


http://purl.org/vso/ns#Bike

The ontology itself (the instance of owl:Ontology) has the URI

http://purl.org/vso/ns#

  a owl:Ontology ;
owl:imports  ;
dc:title "VSO: The Vehicle Sales Ontology for Semantic Web-based 
E-Commerce"@en .


So we have two URIs for the ontology:

1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# for the ontology as an abstract artefact
2. http://purl.org/vso/ns for the syntactical representation of the 
ontology (its serialization)


Yes, you have two HTTP URIs associated with the Ontology. One is the 
"Name" of the Ontology Entity (Thing) and the other is the "Address" 
(URL) of the Ontology Descriptor Resource. Thus:


1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# -- Entity Name Reference
2. http://purl.org/vso/ns -- Descriptor Resource Address Reference .



Shall the rdfs:isDefinedBy statements refer to #1 or #2 ?

#1
vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy  . <===

#2
vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy  . <===


I had assumed they shall refer to #1, but that caused some debate 
within our group ;-)


You refer to Entities (Things) by Name Reference for Linked Data to work 
i.e. Names resolve to Descriptor Resources which may be serialized from 
Linked Data Server to User Agent using a variety of data formats such 
as: HTML+RDFa, RDF/XML, N3/Turtle, N-Triples, TriX etc..


Opinions?


Also cc'd in the pedantic web folks for comments :-)



Best

Martin






--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Correct Usage of rdfs:idDefinedBy in Vocabulary Specifications with a Hash-based URI Pattern

2010-09-30 Thread Michael Hausenblas 

Martin,

> Opinions?

We had the same discussion in the voiD team, see [1], and resolved it
eventually - hope this helps.

Cheers,
  Michael

[1] http://code.google.com/p/void-impl/issues/detail?id=45

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Martin Hepp 
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:06:46 +0200
> To: Linked Data community 
> Subject: Correct Usage of rdfs:idDefinedBy in Vocabulary Specifications with a
> Hash-based URI Pattern
> Resent-From: Linked Data community 
> Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:07:24 +
> 
> Dear all:
> 
> We use rdfs:isDefinedBy in all of our vocabularies (*) for linking
> between the conceptual elements and their specification.
> 
> Now, there is a subtle question:
> 
> Let's assume we have an ontology with the main URI
> 
> http://purl.org/vso/ns
> 
> All conceptual elements are defined as hash fragment URIs (URI
> references), e.g.
> 
> http://purl.org/vso/ns#Bike
> 
> The ontology itself (the instance of owl:Ontology) has the URI
> 
> http://purl.org/vso/ns#
> 
>   a owl:Ontology ;
>  owl:imports  ;
>  dc:title "VSO: The Vehicle Sales Ontology for Semantic Web-based
> E-Commerce"@en .
> 
> So we have two URIs for the ontology:
> 
> 1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# for the ontology as an abstract artefact
> 2. http://purl.org/vso/ns for the syntactical representation of the
> ontology (its serialization)
> 
> Shall the rdfs:isDefinedBy statements refer to #1 or #2 ?
> 
> #1
> vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
>  rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
>  rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
>  rdfs:isDefinedBy  .  <===
> 
> #2
> vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
>  rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
>  rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
>  rdfs:isDefinedBy  .   <===
> 
> 
> I had assumed they shall refer to #1, but that caused some debate
> within our group ;-)
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Best
> 
> Martin
> 
>

Correct Usage of rdfs:idDefinedBy in Vocabulary Specifications with a Hash-based URI Pattern

2010-09-30 Thread Martin Hepp 

Dear all:

We use rdfs:isDefinedBy in all of our vocabularies (*) for linking  
between the conceptual elements and their specification.


Now, there is a subtle question:

Let's assume we have an ontology with the main URI

http://purl.org/vso/ns

All conceptual elements are defined as hash fragment URIs (URI  
references), e.g.


http://purl.org/vso/ns#Bike

The ontology itself (the instance of owl:Ontology) has the URI

http://purl.org/vso/ns#

  a owl:Ontology ;
owl:imports  ;
dc:title "VSO: The Vehicle Sales Ontology for Semantic Web-based  
E-Commerce"@en .


So we have two URIs for the ontology:

1. http://purl.org/vso/ns# for the ontology as an abstract artefact
2. http://purl.org/vso/ns for the syntactical representation of the  
ontology (its serialization)


Shall the rdfs:isDefinedBy statements refer to #1 or #2 ?

#1
vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy  .  <===

#2
vso:Vehicle a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf gr:ProductOrService ;
rdfs:label "Vehicle (gr:ProductOrService)"@en ;
rdfs:isDefinedBy  .   <===


I had assumed they shall refer to #1, but that caused some debate  
within our group ;-)


Opinions?

Best

Martin