internet privacy, hypertext, domain name, HTTP, HTML, URI,. Web of people ... volume of information available on the Web, recommending the user the right ...
Web by the People, for the People, of the People Pavol Navrat, Daniela Chuda Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia {pavol.navrat, daniela.chuda}@stuba.sk Abstract— World Wide Web is undoubtedly a human creation. It was facilitated by a number of major inventions. Its continuous development results largely from innovative engineering efforts. The Web viewed as essentially a service provided on the Internet offers many different functions. We discuss information providing functionality offered as "Web search". Recent trends involve devising schemes to make search more personalized. This is just one example of a service provided for the people. In order to devise a web functionality to work better for the user, there are studied specific human characteristics when working on the Web. For example, each human uses a keyboard or a mouse in a slightly different way. Tracing user's gaze can also contribute to adjusting a particular service better to user's need. However, the Web ultimately develops to an infrastructure that is capable to connect people. Social networking sites or services offer connecting capability to existing social networks. Much more, they facilitate forming new social networks or perhaps other kinds of structures to be studied in a interdisciplinary way, including not only engineering, but also disciplines from social sciences. This is true for the whole Web of the people that brings many challenges, e.g. sensitive issues of privacy and security. Keywords—Web search, personalisation, internet security, internet privacy, hypertext, domain name, HTTP, HTML, URI, Web of people
I. INTRODUCTION Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose, wrote an author 70 years ago. Mendel's concept of the laws of genetics was lost to the world for a generation because his publication did not reach the few who were capable of grasping and extending it; and this sort of catastrophe is undoubtedly being repeated all about us, as truly significant attainments become lost in the mass of the inconsequential. The difficulty seems to be, not so much that we publish unduly in view of the extent and variety of present day interests, but rather that publication has been extended far beyond our present ability to make real use of the record. The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships.
© © 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
But there are signs of a change as new and powerful instrumentalities come into use. All these sentences are quoted from an essay written exactly 70 years ago but can be used in introducing the concept of the World Wide Web, or the Web for short, even today. Vanevar Bush, who wrote the essay „As we may think“, not only identified the problem arising from the growing volume of information but also proposed a mechanism to cope with it. It took nearly half of a century and required a few key inventions before the Web came into existence. The Web was created by people who proposed and invented its fundamental schemas and concepts. But it would not become such a phenomenon as it is without miriads of people, its users, who invested their faculties in developing often unexpected solutions based on the Web, unthinkable before its advent. The Web itself can be considered a service offered on the Internet. However, we, people, use many of the particular services offered through it. Among them, most important is information provision. Indeed, the Web is first of all a source of information. The Web is here for billions of people, who have very different interests. The challenge is to personalize whatever service is provided to the user. Facing the immense volume of information available on the Web, recommending the user the right information is crucial. This requires learning more about the user, their behavior, particularly how they interact with the service through its interface including the way they use mouse, keyboard etc. The other side of this is that more and more is known about us. This raises questions on the concept of privacy. But even if data of personal nature are recorded consistently with an appropriate definition of privacy, they must be secured to prevent from inappropriate use. Information security is highly important when considering anything that the Web offers for people. Next generation of visionaries came with a concept of a social networking service. It is based on a realisation that the Web connects people. Facebook is not a social network. It is a Web based service that facilitates formation and activities of many social networks. The Web allows them not only share information, it allows people communicate with each other. People are becoming interconnected in miriads of different ways. Web of people emerges.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section II, we discuss the main inventions that have led to creation of the Web. In Section III, we present some of the services that are offered by the Web for people. Section IV outlines social networking services offered on the Web as emerging means of linking or connecting people. We shall argue that what we are witnessing currently is emergence of what can be named as the Web of people.
Time between 1945 and 1989 witnessed several research initiatives aimed at building upon (some of) the Bush’s ideas. If there is one to mention, it is undoubtedly the project Xanadu, founded by Nelson in 1960. Unlike memex of the pre-computer era, the goal of Xanadu was to create a computer network with a simple user interface that implements the concept of nonlinear interlinked documents (hypertext and hypermedia) [4].
II. CREATED BY PEOPLE
It is worth mentioning that Xanadu considers links between documents to be bi-directional, i.e. not only a document A can link to another document B, but from B one can access all the documents that link to it, including A. The question whether links should be mono-directional or bi-directional was debated in the eighties until it was practically resolved by BernersLee’s decision to design the Web as mono-directional hypertext, preferring the technically simpler choice. Theoretically, however, the argument can continue on what would be the difference, if any document (and by extension, its owner) would know what (who) links/refers to/watches it/them. While technically feasible, the social and cultural implications might be enormous.
The Web stands on a few pillars, all of which are results of a human creativity. Let us mention the hypertext, the Internet, the Web technologies and the Web principles. A. Hypertext Facing the problem of how to manage information in an organization such as CERN with thousands of creative people working towards various common goals, who share information and communicate in a web-like informal dynamic structure, software engineer T. Berners-Lee proposed to organize all information as a web of notes with links between them [1]. He was aware the term hypertext was coined already a quarter century ago [2] to describe human-readable information linked together in an unconstrained way. The concept, in turn, was outlined implicitly in description of the memex [3]. It is instructive to read the original Bush’s description of an essential feature of the memex: The owner of the memex, let us say, is interested in the origin and properties of the bow and arrow... He has dozens of possibly pertinent books and articles in his memex. First he runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article, leaves it projected. Next, in a history, he finds another pertinent item, and ties the two together. Thus he goes, building a trail of many items. Occasionally he inserts a comment of his own, either linking it into the main trail or joining it by a side trail to a particular item. When it becomes evident that the elastic properties of available materials had a great deal to do with the bow, he branches off on a side trail which takes him through textbooks on elasticity and tables of physical constants. He inserts a page of longhand analysis of his own. Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials available to him. The current Web does not offer its user the kind of functionality as envisaged by Bush. Whereas the memexer is supposed to build their trail of interest as they explore the information space, the current user is confined to follow links predefined in the documents by someone else. More importantly, the Web is not capable of recording links established on the user’s wandering in the information space so that they could use such discovered connections later. Such records would be beneficial for the user as an interested fellow from the information seeking perspective. However, the growing experience with the Web usage today urges a different perspective to be taken into account, too. If such records of individual trails of interest would be shared with other users (and from the information seeking perspective this may look as a reasonable thing to do), it may be too big a compromise with the user’s expectation of privacy.
B. The Internet Internet was created by interconnecting several computer networks. Connected supercomputers were able to run big numbers of terminals, which were places for individual computer use. Suddenly, many people at different locations using a connected computer via a terminal became themselves connected. Electronic mail became a killer application of the Internet. People found out that they can exchange a dozen letters in a single day with someone at the other side of the globe. Consequences of such radical increase of communication effectiveness for global business and commerce have been pervasive. Internet facilitated also other things besides e-mail. Documents became transferrable from one computer to another once there was devised and implemented file transfer protocol (FTP). This requires, besides other things, a way to identify computers and people on the Internet. Crucial concept is a system of domain names that gives names to computers, services or any other sources connected to the Internet. The system was designed hierarchically, with top level domains such as .sk and subdomains such as .stuba. Such an identification is for a human more comprehensible than the actual computer address such as 147.175.1.18. Domain name servers do the translation from domain names to addresses. The naming scheme was created with so much flexibility that it can still be used even if number of names needed today vastly exceeds the wildest estimates contemplated at the time of its creation. Possibility to download a document from any computer anywhere provided it is connected to the Internet was surely a great thing, albeit not very flexible for a human to use. But the stage was set for a cardinal breakthrough. C. The Web technologies If any single person is to be named the inventor of the Web, it is Sir Tim Berners-Lee. His idea to allow documents available on the Internet to be linked, would create, if
implemented, an immense space of linked documents that are shared by all. As a (software) engineer, he not only came with a vague but exciting idea, but also devised the technologies that he envisaged as needed to implement the idea. In 1990, he developed a language to format documents (hypertext markup language, HTML), a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) and a scheme to identify each resource on the Web (universal resource identifier, URI). Once these concepts were defined, he wrote the first Web browser and implemented the first Web server. In 1991, the Web began spreading beyond the limits of CERN. D. The Web principles The creators of the Web soon recognized its potential but realized that in order to fully unbend it, certain principles should be adopted. First, the software created to run the Web should be accessible to anyone, anywhere, without a fee (royalty) or permission. This commitment was essential. People not only started using the Web, they began to collaborate on it and to create innovative solutions to almost any problem one can think of. Sir Tim initiated formation of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1994 as an open forum of the Web community. They realized the importance of standards. The Consortium considers itself responsible for developing standards of the open Web. The concept is based on several key principles: decentralisation, non-discrimination, bottom-up design, universality and consensus. III. SERVICES FOR PEOPLE The Web becomes a basis for many different services offered to people, their users. A. Example: Information seeking Information seeking is perhaps closest to the original use case of the Web as a repository of interlinked documents allowing the user, the interested or curious fellow, to seek answers to their questions. If taken literally, this does not work today, although there is a wealth of research on the subject of question answering in a natural language. There are many challenges in this vision. Whereas it is most natural for a curious human to formulate a question, it is extremely difficult to understand such a sentence for a machine. How do we define understanding by a machine? To process a question and produce an answer, machines need knowledge. All this must be represented in a machine processable form, not in a natural language. One of the recent most successful projects is Watson [5]. Its knowledge sources include various encyclopaedias, thesauri, dictionaries, literary works etc. In other words, it does not use the Web. To be able to produce an answer in a real time, it needs the knowledge to be preprocessed already, which is impossible for the Web in its entirety. On the other hand, to answer a particular question, it is never the case that the whole Web would be needed. One approach could be to learn gradually from answering history where answers are constructed from results of Web search [6]. Despite the difficulties with natural language question answering in general and one based on knowledge extracted from the Web in particular, people use nowadays the Web as
their important, perhaps primary source of information. Due to an enormous success of Web search engines, they learned in a few years to write keywords instead of questions. They also read documents, trying to extract information that answers their question instead of reading answers. This cultural shift is indeed remarkable. It is, for better or worse, attributed to Google, the most successful of the search engines so far. Google is an enormous entrepreneurial success based on an extremely innovative scientific result. The underlying algorithm to score documents found relevant to a given query was presented at the 7th World Wide Web Conference in 1998. PageRank, as the algorithm was named, is an invention of Sergey Brin and Larry Page [7], then doctoral students at Stanford University. They created a search engine that is able to return documents from the Web that are relevant to the query formulated as a set of one or several keywords. Since usually the search engine is not able to narrow the search to one or just a few documents, it is crucial that it ranks the set of returned documents according to their importance to the query, since otherwise the interested fellow would get lost in the huge set. Their idea is that more important documents are those that receive more links and those that receive links from more important documents. Thus their algorithm counts recursively the number of links to a document and computes their quality. Based on that, each returned document receives a ranking and all the returned documents, no matter how many of them are, are sorted. Note that the algorithm needs a backward link, which is not explicitly present in the Web (due to the decision to make the links mono-directional). Google needs to collect as many Web pages as possible (in the process called crawling) to be able to analyze the pages for backward links. Information seeking using Web search engines and particularly Google has become over less than two decades (i.e., one generation) so prevalent that a new verb “to google” is frequently used to describe it. However, we should bear in mind that to write one or a few keywords into a search box cannot be a full substitute of formulating a question. Whereas “what?”, “who?”, “where?”, or “when?” type questions receive reasonably good responses by search engines when approximated by a set of keywords, the “why?” type question requires most often reasoning, not just searching for an appropriate text, which is beyond capabilities of current search engines. What consequences will have this shift away from analytical, critical thinking towards relying on factual knowledge, remains to be seen. 1) Recommendation and filtering Most often, a standard search engine returns rather hundreds or thousands of documents that are supposed to be somehow relevant to the query. They are presented to the interested fellow in an order that only imperfectly reflects their original information need. Technically, the results are displayed in pages containing usually short information (a title and snippet) on 10 documents. As the experience shows, people rarely browse the results beyond the first page and on that page, they prefer to inspect just the first, much less the second or any other document. It is therefore very important to amend the outcome of the search to reduce the list of returned documents. The idea is to single out those documents that more closely correspond to the anticipated information need. If the
approach is to identify them, then it is usually termed as recommendation, in case of negative identification the approach is termed filtering, although both terms are often used interchangeably. There are various approaches to recommendation and filtering and this has been one of the most researched topics in relation to Web [8]. The basic question is: what knowledge can be used to further reduce or reorder the search results, and is it available? One such source has been identified as the context of the query, i.e. the circumstances, the data and information that are somehow relevant to the query. This definition is very broad and quite naturally, the interested fellow, their search experience, current interests etc. are part of it. This is one of the reasons that we need to know more about the people who use the Web. 2) Exploratory search No matter how good recommendations are made to the interested fellow, there may be inherent reasons why answering their question in a single step cannot succeed. Perhaps the underlying assumption that the interested fellow knows what information they actually need is too strong. Or they are not able to express their information need by proper keywords. The Web search then becomes a process comprising several steps, when the interested fellow explores the Web information space [9]. There are various approaches to support them, e.g. by providing facet browsers [10]. B. Knowing the people To provide a service for people usually requires knowing them or, as we discussed the case of Web search, knowing them can bring important information that facilitates its improvement. Obviously, to know a person is a too ambitious task. We shall restrict our discussion here to some information that can be acquired from their interaction with the Web interface. It is very important to be able to identify the user or their properties. This can be done on the basis of their behavior when interacting with the Web. Any user provides implicitly a lot of potentially useful information that can be extracted from their mouse clicking, gaze movement etc. Users of the Web leave tracks while browsing and using the Web. While creating content, by monitoring their behavior it is possible to log their activities. It is possible to save not only content but also the tracks, which they leave by using. These tracks may be keystroke dynamics metrics or mouse dynamics metrics – biometric characteristics. Research on keystroke dynamics and mouse dynamics biometrics is growing. It is mostly because the solution is economical, easy integrated, without a necessity of special hardware and without necessity of user’s cooperation. The process of identification and authentication of a user can be divided into: 1. monitoring a user and loging his characteristics, 2. creating a user’s model, 3. recognition of a user, comparing a template with a user‘s model, 4. action.
After having recognized the user, an action can be activated for example: recommendation, filtering or security action. User authentication can be static or dynamic [11]. Static authentication is during logging activity, when the user is typing the login name and password. Dynamic authentication is during their work on the Web (e.g., with the browser). 1) Keystroke dynamics One of biometric metrics, which can be monitored for user authentication, is the keystroke dynamics of writing on the keyboard, which clearly characterizes the user and requires no additional hardware devices. The idea of using keystroke dynamics for user authentication is known from the time of telegraphy in the 19th century, but the implementation is known in the recent years. Keystroke dynamics metrics are based on user behavior by typing text on the keyboard. These biometric metrics uses the rhythm of user's typing on keyboard. The keyboard statistics approach is based on the user’s unique typing rhythm. Not only what user types, but also how they type is important. There are many possible ways how to work with data generated by keyboard. We can monitor keystroke events (time and value), so we can use this metrics for keystroke dynamics [12]: • the key down events of users typing on the keyboard of concrete key, • the key up events of users typing on the keyboard of concrete key, • the latency or dwell time is the time between key down and key up events, it is the time how long a key is pressed, • the flight time is the time of how long it takes to move from one key to another, • digraph latency time is the time between pressing the first key and releasing the second key in a series – it is a specific time for different series of keys, • trigraph latency time is the time between pressing the first key and releasing the third key in a series – it is a specific time for different series of keys, • simultaneously pressed keys. We analyzed previous works on topic keystroke dynamics. Some authors use statistics evaluation methods [13, 14, 15, 16] and some authors use for evaluation neural networks [17]. To model a user, measures such as digraphs, trigraphs, dwell time and flight time are used. Other approaches use mouse movement [18, 19]. We have designed a system for user multifactor authentication combining the standard authentication with login and password with the keystroke dynamics authentication based on user modeling [12]. We have also experimented with dynamic authentication based on keystroke dynamics. Performance of biometrics systems for authentication are compared using error rates FAR (false acceptance rate) and FRR (false reject rate). When system does not authenticate an authorized user (FRR - False Rejection Rate, also known as False Alarm Rate), a legitimate user is rejected. When system
authenticates a impostor as an authorized user (FAR - False Acceptance Rate, also known as Impostor Pass Rate), an impostor is accepted as a legitimate user. Authentication solutions based on keystroke dynamics give generally better error rates than solutions based on mouse dynamics. 2) Mouse clicking, mouse dynamics One of possible alternative ways of modeling user behavior is to control not only keystroke dynamics, but also mouse dynamics. Mouse usage characteristics are cheap and widely accessible alternative to other forms of biometrics reaching promising results in identity verification task. Webbased applications are controlled by computer mouse most of the time. Research works in this field are aimed at dynamical authentication mostly. A basic method proposed in [20] embraces gathering of mouse events and calculating characteristics such as distance, duration and angle for a window of N points. In other works mouse events are organized into various high-level actions – strokes for bordered movement data [21], four common actions point & click, drag & drop, movement and silence [18] or more complex hierarchy of actions [22]. In other research authors [23] proposes usage of angular metrics for authentication/identification such as angle of direction, curvature angle and curvature distance. Temporal metrics are not suitable because of the dependency on the environment (resolution, sensitivity of the device). The study showed that the angular metrics are resistant to the change in environment. Usually, the template model is represented by a feature vector, which holds values of the characteristics of aggregated actions. Classification whether the test model belongs to the user who claims their identity (or matches the trained template model) is mostly performed using decision trees [19,21], neural networks [18], SVM classifier [23] or using statistical approach such as distribution comparison [20]. The three standard computer mouse events are tracked [24, 25, 26] – mouse movement, mouse button press and release. Apart from these, we track events specific for Web environment – scrolling of a page up and down, leaving and entering the document area. Each event is assigned timestamp and x and y coordinates of the cursor. Mouse events (movement, button down/up) with corresponding coordinates and timestamps were recorded. The raw data were processed into navigation actions point and click. We calculated [24, 25, 26] ten mouse click and movement features - characteristics: click duration, pause before click, pause after click, a basic feature curve length, standard deviation of velocity, curvature, jitter - ratio of smoothed and raw movement lengths, direction, angle of curvature and curvature distance. These characteristics of mouse dynamics can be used for user modelling or user authentication or for group authentication. 3) Gaze tracking Behavior characteristics of a user are also possible to monitor with additional hardware. This is called gaze tracking. It is used by research of user’s experience. It is possible to
make use of monitoring the user’s behavior: while reading the content, while learning, while using software... The characteristics, which can be monitored are: • eye movement, • time of fixation, • number of fixations, • number of saccades per time. In our department we have a special laboratory – UX lab – User experiences laboratory. In Ux lab we have a PC station with eye tracker and google glasses. C. Privacy and security The privacy and security of the Web is very important. The users collect the data and make use out of them, which brings along risks. The users influence the Web and on the other side the Web influences the users. Privacy can be defined as „ensuring that individuals maintain the right to control what information is collected about them, how it is used, who has used it, who maintains it, and what purpose it is used for“. Security can be defined as „the state of being protected or safe from harm or freedom from risk or danger“. Monitoring of the user is very vulnerable from the user’s privacy view. The monitoring software cannot invade the right of privacy. The user should know that they are being monitored and should have the opportunity to disapprove. Monitoring users characteristics like keystroke dynamics and mouse dynamics can be used for: • process of multifactor identification and autentication, • process of dividing users into groups (experienced and inexperienced user, learning style group, ...). One-time authentication using password on learning on the Web cannot defend against remote user impersonation [27]. The way of reinforcing password protection of an account could be achieved using biometrics, specifically behavioural characteristics of users. Standard input devices provide data holding keyboard and computer mouse usage characteristics. These characteristics show good results in proving identity either when accessing account or continuously after their logging in. Mouse and keystroke dynamics approach is less intrusive than other biometrics methods and requires no specialized equipment to capture the biometric data, so it could be applied widely. Moreover, such characteristics can be continuously monitored and analyzed during the user's session. Information seeking, recommendation, filtering and monitoring of user characteristics are executed with the aim to improved transfer of the information from Web to user. Monitoring of a user can induce their misgiving, concerns and disquietness about privacy and security. Because of enormous amount of content on the Web it is important to filter the content for user. User should be informed about using the Web and should be able to anonymize some operations. Leaving the
tracks on the Web leads to short-lasting and long-lasting threats. Tracks on the Web about the user can be analyzed to subsequently synthetize information about the user. Using social media brings new possibilities and security situations. The aim of monitoring user’s characteristics and user modelling is not to misuse their privacy but to understand their behavior, to improve the software for user, help them accelerate information seeking and personalized content for the user. IV. WEB OF PEOPLE It is almost self-evident but perhaps worth mentioning, that neither Facebook, nor Twitter, LinledIn or any other social networking service (or site) is a social network per se. They are all essentially Web based services that facilitate creation and functioning of an unlimited number of different social networks that are committed to communicate via the Web. Once again, one of the very important functions is information sharing. From the currently best known, the social networking service LinkedIn started in 2003 (Reid Hoffman, graduate of Stanford University and Oxford University), Facebook in 2003 (Mark Zuckerberg, student at Harvard) and Twitter in 2006 (Jack Dorsey, student of New York University). However, history of social networking services on the Web goes back to the very beginnings of the Web and there were attempts to support online communities even before the inception of the Web. Facebook, being currently the largest and most successful social networking service, is particularly supportive and even encouraging its users to share information. Much of it is of personal nature. Statuses or microblogs are personal statements that potentially contain a lot of information on its author’s preferences or opinions. If the author allows such information to be accessed by a Web searching capability, it can be employed to improve the Web search. However, the most profound changes that are coming with the introduction and spreading of social networking services, especially having connected millions of people, are not at the individual level. With so many people expressing their reviews, ratings, evaluations on many different things, it is interesting to analyze overall sentiment among the people on a particular product, service, or an important political issue. Methods of opinion or sentiment analysis have been studied in natural language text analysis, but in the Web the problem faces additional challenges. The development has sparked a lot of research aimed at devising or improving various services for social networks. Facebook, for example, supports organization of events. It is very easy to invite tens or even hundreds of people in a network. However, for the organizer it is often important to have a prior estimate how many of the invitees are likely to actually attend the event. This can be estimated by analysis of their previous behavior, taking into account mutual relations within them [28]. This just a small example to show that a wide variety of services that facilitate functioning of a group of people will be increasingly offered online on the Web.
The Web of people is becoming a potentially valuable source of knowledge. Although the concept of crowdsourcing predates the Web, soliciting (possibly small) contributions to obtaining a desired solution, idea, service from a large number people is much facilitated if online communities are involved. There are researched various approaches to Web crowdsourcing. For example, games with a purpose can be effective in soliciting a particular knowledge from a crowd of people [29]. People are more and more present on the Web. They communicate, collaborate, share information, network on the Web irrespective their current geographical location, often not personally knowing each other, not having been able ever to physically meet. It is beyond the scope of an information technology discipline, but it should be noted that there emerge new kinds of human relationships or the known ones are subject to redefinition. Most infamous perhaps is the notion of a „friend“ as operationalized by Facebook, effectively replacing a deep human relationship by a trivial impersonal acquaintance. V. CONCLUSIONS The current Web has already revolutionized lives of billions of people and there is no end of its development in sight. We shall experience more changes in our lives. In fact, the creative energy of its users that has been unleashed by its inception guarantees a continuous innovation. However, new is not always better. Already now there are clear signs that innovative Web based solutions, while appearing very attractive from certain point of view, could unacceptably compromise our expectations on privacy and requirements of security. More generally, the Web brings societal changes. They must be identified and studied in an interdisciplinary way [30, 31]. We hypothesize that the Web has been the most influential phenomenon to change ways billions of people live in our planet. Furthermore, we envisage that it facilitates a transformation of social relations both locally and globally towards a very flexible and fluent structure that can best be described as the Web of people. After all, the Internet of things deserves a complement. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was partially supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of Slovakia, grants No. VG 1/0752/14 and VG 1/0646/15. REFERENCES [1] [2]
[3] [4]
T. Berners-Lee, „Information Management: A Proposal", 1989, CERN. T. Nelsen, "Complex Information Processing: A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate,"ACM '65 Proceedings of the 1965 20th national conference, 84-100. V. Bush, "As We May Think." Atlantic Monthly 176.1 (July 1945): 101108. T. Nelson, „Literary Machines: The report on, and of, Project Xanadu concerning word processing, electronic publishing, hypertext, thinkertoys, tomorrow's intellectual revolution, and certain other topics including knowledge, education and freedom” (1981), Mindful Press, Sausalito, California.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] [10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] [16]
[17]
[18]
D. A. Ferrucci, E. W. Brown, J. Chu-Carroll, J.Fan, D. Gondek, A. Kalyanpur, A. Lally, J. W. Murdock, E. Nyberg, J. M. Prager, N. Schlaefer, C. A. Welty: Building Watson: An Overview of the DeepQA Project. AI Magazine 31(3): 59-79 (2010) L. Loch, P. Navrat, A. Kovarova: Answering Questions Based on Gradually Learned Knowledge from the Web Using Lightweight Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech '15), Boris Rachev and Angel Smrikarov (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2015, in press. S. Brin, L. Page: The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International World Wide Web Conference, published in Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Volume 30, Issues 1–7, April 1998, Pages 107–117 P. Navrat, G. Polcicova: Recommending WWW information sources using Feature Guided Automated Collaborative Filtering. In: Shi, Z., Faltings, B. and Musen, M. (Eds.): Proceedings of Conference on Intelligent Information Processing at 16th World Computer Congress, 115-118, 2000. R. White, R. Roth: Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm. Morgan & Claypool, 2009 M. Tvarozek: Exploratory Search in the Adaptive Social SemanticWeb, Information Sciences and Technologies Bulletin of the ACM Slovakia, 2011, 3(1), 42-51 P. S. Teh, A. B. J. Teoh, and S. Yue, “A Survey of Keystroke Dynamics Biometrics", in The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, Article ID 408280, pp. 24, 2013. D. Chuda and M. Durfina, "Multifactor authentication based on keystroke dynamics.", Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies and Workshop for PhD Students in Computing, 2009, pp. 89:1–6. F. Bergadano, D. Gunetti, and C. Picardi, “User authentication through keystroke dynamics.” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 5, pp. 367-397, 2002. R. Gaines, W. Lisowski, S. Press, and N. Shapiro, “Authentication by keystroke timing: some Preliminary Results,” Report R-256-NSF. Rand Corporation. 1980. R. Joyce, and G. Gupta, “Identity authentication based on keystroke latencies,” Communication of ACM 33, 2, pp. 168-176. 1990. F. Monrose, A. D. Rubin, “Keystroke Dynamics as a Biometric for Authentication,” Journal Security on the Web (special issue) Future Generation Computing Systems (FGCS), pp. 351–359, March 2000. A. Lammers, and S. Langenfeld, “Identity Authentication Based on Keystroke Latencies Using Neural Networks,” Journal Comput. Small Coll. 6, 5, pp. 48-51, 1991. E. Ahmed, I. Traore, “A new biometric technology based on mouse dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 165-179, 2007.
[19] M. Pusara, C. E. Brodley, “User re-authentication via mouse movements,” Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Visualization and data mining for computer security, New York: ACM Press, pp. 1-8, 2004. [20] H. Gamboa, and A. Fred, "A behavioral biometric system based on human-computer interaction," Proceedings of SPIE 5404, Biometric Technology for Human Identification, pp. 381–392, 2004. [21] C. Feher, Y. Elovici, R. Moskovitch, L. Rokach, and A. Schclar, "User identity verification via mouse dynamics," in Information Sciences, 201, pp. 19–36, 2012. [22] N. Zheng, A. Paloski, and H. Wang, "An efficient user verification system via mouse movements," Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security - CCS ’11, pp. 139–150, 2011. [23] S. Mondal, and P. Bours, "Continuous authentication using mouse dynamics," International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG), pp. 1–12, 2013. [24] D. Chuda and P. Kratky, "Usage of computer mouse characteristics for identification in web browsing." Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech '14), Boris Rachev and Angel Smrikarov (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 218-225. [25] D. Chuda and P. Kratky, "Grouping Instances in kNN for Classification Based on Computer Mouse Features", Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech '15), Boris Rachev and Angel Smrikarov (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2015, in press. [26] D. Chuda, P. Kratky, and J. Tvarozek, "Mouse Clicks Can Recognize Web Page Visitors!.", Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '15 Companion). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 2015, pp. 21-22. [27] A. Moini, and A. M. Madni, "Leveraging Biometrics for User Authentication in Online Learning: A Systems Perspective," in Systems Journal, IEEE, vol. 3(4), pp. 469–476, 2010. [28] J. Michalco, P. Navrat: Arrangement of Face-to-Face Meetings using Social Media. In Studies in Informatics and Control. Vol. 21, No. 4 (2012), 383-392. [29] J. Simko, M. Bielikova: Semantic acquisition games : harnessing manpower for creating semantics. Springer, 2014. 141 pp. [30] P. Navrat, „Cognitive traveling in digital space: from keyword search through exploratory information seeking“, Central European Journal of Computer Science. vol. 2, issue 3, pp.170-182, 2012. [31] P. Navrat et. al, “Web Science”, STU Press, 2014, 142 pp. [Weboveda, in Slovak].
