Saturday, May 29, 2010

(with correct links): Fulton course/instructor evaluations


[The links should work now]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Subbarao Kambhampati <rao@asu.edu>
Date: Sat, May 29, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Subject: Fulton course/instructor evaluations
To: Rao Kambhampati <rao@asu.edu>


Dear all:


I just received the results of the college teaching evaluations that you folks filled in and enjoyed reading them.

Thanks for taking the  time to fill these (the  students who couldn't get around to it are of course expressly excluded from these thanks;
it is hoped that they will be riddled with guilt instead :)

It is my somewhat quixotic custom to allow access to the evaluations to the class students for a limited time. It might give you a feel as to how your individual
views stacked up with the rest of the class. In keeping with it, here are links to the full evaluations--warts and all--in case you are interested:

http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/tmp/494-s10-ug-evals.htm

http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/tmp/494-s10-grad-evals.htm


If you have any other things you need to get off your chest regarding the course, feel free to let me know.

Otherwise, this will hopefully be the last communication on this mailing list.

Wishing you a relaxing Memorial Day weekend
Rao




Fulton course/instructor evaluations

Dear all:


I just received the results of the college teaching evaluations that you folks filled in and enjoyed reading them.

Thanks for taking the  time to fill these (the  students who couldn't get around to it are of course expressly excluded from these thanks;
it is hoped that they will be riddled with guilt instead :)

It is my somewhat quixotic custom to allow access to the evaluations to the class students for a limited time. It might give you a feel as to how your individual
views stacked up with the rest of the class. In keeping with it, here are links to the full evaluations--warts and all--in case you are interested:

http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/tmp/494-s10-ug-evals.htm

http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/tmp/494-s10-grad-evals.htm


If you have any other things you need to get off your chest regarding the course, feel free to let me know.

Otherwise, this will hopefully be the last communication on this mailing list.

Wishing you a relaxing Memorial Day weekend
Rao



Friday, May 21, 2010

Extra credit points...

Just as an FYI, here are the weighted extra credit points (over the four projects, 8.44 percentage points were available for extra credit; here is what
various people accumulated). As I said, the grade cutoffs are set only w.r.t. the regular cumulative (you have to trust me that I am not reading this
very email I am sending ;-)

Rao


==============
post id Extra

8.44

 

 

 

 
0182-085 1.75
2834-383 2.25
4227-658 0.00
1798-265 0.00
0983-622 4.39
8248-578 0.00
8414-781 1.11
0976-610 0.00
4263-811 0.00

 

 
2236-509 7.00
8069-301 3.08
6583-255 5.50
3175-812 5.97
9776-779 5.60
3625-775 5.67
0374-135 5.22
2075-379 5.86
8303-675 5.14
6377-700 6.58
6421-767 6.44
9686-775 2.60
7753-034 3.54
9247-014 5.43
1798-698 4.28
2000-612 4.78
9642-399 5.22
5150-913 6.14
6490-976 0.44
5481-043 2.25
0936-100 0.00

=============================================

Cumulatives--please let me know if you see any discrepancies...

Folks:

 Attached please find a pdf file with the cumulatives in rank order

I used the following procedure to compute the cumulative:

Projects 40pts (out of 100)
Exams   35pts (out of 100)
Homeworks 20pts (out of 100)
participation 5pts (out of 100)

The three project parts and the demo were all taken together to be 10pts each
homeworks were each taken to be 5pts
Exams were both taken to be 17.5pts each
participation grade is a numeric translation of the letter grade (in a 1-5 range).


If you see any discrepancies or have reservations about the way I computed the cumulative, let me know ASAP.

regards
Rao

Participation grade

Here are the participation grades (the letters will be convered to numbers and combined with other scores to get the cumulative--which will be sent in a min)

regards
rao


post id #absences Participation (Qn+blog) Pgrade post id

     

     

     

     

     
0182-085 2 0+1 B+ 0182-085
2834-383 0 1+1 A 2834-383
8414-781     B 8414-781
1798-265 20+ 2+3 D 1798-265
0976-610 0 2+2 A 0976-610
0983-622 4? 5+4 C+ 0983-622
4227-658 1 0+1 C+ 4227-658
8248-578 2 8+0 A- 8248-578
4263-811 6 3+1 C 4263-811

     

     
2236-509 1(1) 1+3 A 2236-509
6583-255 0 0+2 A- 6583-255
8069-301 0 20+0 A+ 8069-301
2075-379 0 3+6 A+ 2075-379
3175-812 1 0+3 A- 3175-812
0374-135 4(1) 1+2 B 0374-135
2000-612 1(1) 6+5 A- 2000-612
9776-779 0 3+2 A- 9776-779
7753-034 0 12+5 A 7753-034
3625-775 1 0+5 A- 3625-775
9247-014 2(1) 10+10 A 9247-014
6377-700 1(1) 30+5 A+ 6377-700
6421-767 0 3+2 A 6421-767
8303-675 0 4+3 A 8303-675
9686-775 1(1) 40+0 A 9686-775
1798-698 2(1) 25+1 A- 1798-698
5150-913 3(3) 1+3 A- 5150-913
9642-399 1 7+0 A- 9642-399
5481-043 0 10+3 A 5481-043
6490-976 3(1) 2+0 B+ 6490-976
0936-100 0 0+5? A 0936-100

Grades for project part 3 and Demo

Here are the grades for project part 3 and demo that the TA sent:

===========
post id Proj 3 P3 Ex Demo Dm Ex

40 10 40 6




















0182-085 32 3 36 4
2834-383 39 3 35 6
8414-781 22 0 30 0
1798-265 19 0 34 0
0976-610 0 0 15 0
0983-622 28.5 6 32 0
4227-658 32 0 32 0
8248-578 29 0 33.5 0
4263-811 1.5 0    










2236-509 40 6 40 6
6583-255 38 0 36 6
8069-301 39 2 40 5
2075-379 40 5 38.5 6
3175-812 35.5 9 40 6
0374-135 30.5 6 40 6
2000-612 32.5 6 33.5 6
9776-779 35 7.5 35 6
7753-034 39 6 34 5.5
3625-775 35.8 6 40 6
9247-014 33.5 3.5 37.5 4
6377-700 28 7 35.5 6
6421-767 38.5 10 34 6
8303-675 33.5 3 35 6
9686-775 37 4.5 36.5 5
1798-698 29 2 35 0
5150-913 32.5 7 35.5 6
9642-399 37.5 6 35 6
5481-043 29 3 29 6
6490-976 31.5 0 36.5 0
0936-100        

Grades for the final exam in CSE 494

Folks:

 I finally completed grading the final. Here are the points:


post id Final

90








0182-085 36
2834-383 24
8414-781 24.5
1798-265 40
0976-610 33
0983-622 30
4227-658 40.5
8248-578 28
4263-811 7.5

=============598Section====





2236-509 77.5
6583-255 66.5
8069-301 66
2075-379 38.5
3175-812 65.5
0374-135 60
2000-612 51
9776-779 74.5
7753-034 51
3625-775 61
9247-014 58.5
6377-700 66.5
6421-767 57
8303-675 61.5
9686-775 59.5
1798-698 63.5
5150-913 40
9642-399 60
5481-043 32.5
6490-976 31
0936-100 32

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

on grade posting time-frame..

Folks:

 Sorry I had to leave in the middle of the exam; hope you survived the rest without much pain.

 I am going to be out of town starting tomorrow and until 18th. I will try to post your grades as soon as I can, but did take permission for late
posting just in case.

regards
rao

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Cheat sheet e: Question regarding the scope of the final exam

Yes. One sheet 8.5x11 both sides

On Saturday, May 8, 2010, asael sorensen <Asael.Sorensen@asu.edu> wrote:
> Did you decide on whether we can use a cheat sheet or not?
> Ace Sorensen
> 602.633.5477
> acylt.com
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Subbarao Kambhampati <rao@asu.edu> wrote:
>
> Comprehensive with bias towards post-midterm topics
>
> rao
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Jeff Zhang <xiaolong.zhang.1@asu.edu> wrote:
> Hi Dr. Rao:
>
> Someone asked this question in class once, but I forgot how you answered it. So I'm wondering if the final exam will be scoped towards contents after the mid-term or would it be comprehensive?
>
> Thanks,=============================
> Jeff Zhang
> Department of Computer Science Engineering
> Arizona State University
> 699 S. Mill Ave Suite 371
> Tempe, Arizona
> Voice: (480)-208-5675
>
>
>

Re: Question regarding the scope of the final exam

Comprehensive with bias towards post-midterm topics

rao


On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Jeff Zhang <xiaolong.zhang.1@asu.edu> wrote:
Hi Dr. Rao:

Someone asked this question in class once, but I forgot how you answered it. So I'm wondering if the final exam will be scoped towards contents after the mid-term or would it be comprehensive?

Thanks,
=============================
Jeff Zhang
Department of Computer Science Engineering
Arizona State University
699 S. Mill Ave Suite 371
Tempe, Arizona
Voice: (480)-208-5675

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

homework 4 solutions posted; acquired wisdom link posted

Folks:

 The solutions for homework 4 are online.

 I also put a link to the blog review of the course content (as posted by you) from the lecture notes section. I have read each one of them, and I would encourage you to do so yourself so you can get an idea of what you may have missed that others seem to have caught (or vice versa)

Rao


ps: Here is an interesting mini-project idea involving collaborative filtering to suggest ideas from course to students
          1. Extract structured record from the postings
          2. make an studen-topic matrix
          3. Use collbaborative filtering to recommend, for each student, one or two topics that they might like because students
               just like them seem to like those topics..


          

internship in IR and data mining with a startup company

Prof. Hasan davulcu (HasanDavulcu@asu.edu) asked me to announce to the class that he has several internships in IR with a startup company that he believes the students of this class might be eligible for, and would be interested in.

If you are interested in finding out more, please send a note to him directly (mail address above)

regards
rao

Monday, May 3, 2010

Participation evaluation sheet

folks:

 Please note that you will need to fill-up and turn-in a hard copy of the enclosed participation evaluation sheet in tomorrow's class (I will bring a few blanks
just in case; but you might be better off filling it at home so you have all the correct stats).

regards
Rao


Sunday, May 2, 2010

Re: Question about keyword search on RDF data

I think there are two parts to your question. One is what does it mean to do keyword search on structured data such as RDF. The second is whether keyword queries have to converted into some form of structured queries just to run on RDF (or RDBMS).

This issue has received significant attention in the DB community (recall that RDF can be seen as just a format for Relational data), so let us start there.

Suppose I have a database, and a user gives a keyword query, what tuples in the database should be given as answers to this query? 

The answer is simple if the database has a single table--you just select all the rows that have the keywords in them (modulo some tf/idf extension)

However, most databases are "normalized"--that is, they split a wide "universal tuple" into many small tables. This means that you can have a situation where the keywords are spread over different rows in different tables. [Suppose we have two table [sid, name] and [sid, hobby] (where sid is student-id) A keyword query "rao tennis" will now have to be answered by seeing if there is a join between these two tables over sid that gives a row which has both rao and tennis in it. [The issues remain same whether the database is in RDF format or normal RDBMS one]

So, answering keyword queries will require you to either do arbitrary joins during the query processing stage, or *de-normalize* the database up-front so that you have the full universal relation in front of you (and so can do simple row selection). The former would require more work during query time (in as much as it will force you to rewrite the keyword query into a set of join queries), while the latter kills the structure to support keyword queries. 

The latter approach, as counter-intuitive as it might look for a database person--is actually the one that is used by most search engines that allow keyword access to large-scale databases (in fact, they write each individual universal tuple out as an html file. This process is given a fancy name--"Surfacing of the deep web"). 


The former approach--involving query-time joins to reconstruct universal tuples--started with a system called "BANKS". The problem becomes harder when the primary-key/foreign key joins between the various tables are lost, as might be the case for web databases. See http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/smartint-icde10.pdf



=======
As for the answer to the second question--whether keyword queries get converted to SQL-style queries, "yes" if you use Banks-style approach and "no" if you do surfacing. 


Hope this answers your question.

Rao








On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Siva N <snatara5@asu.edu> wrote:

Professor,

I was having some questions about supporting search on RDF data..

I understand that RDF/RDFS data defines ontology and more semantics to the data and is much closer to structured data such as in relational DB. So does that mean that all queries to RDF data must be of SQL style queries and IR style keyword search may not be applicable ???

So if we were to try developing a keyword search engine on RDF data, does that have to be something like providing keyword search interface and then internally converting the keywords into SQL style queries and retrieve results from RDF data ??

Is doing plain IR-style keyword search on RDF data does not fully utilizes the structured nature of the data and does ontology based search engines are always best suited for RDF data ??

Thanks,
Siva
--
Graduate Student, MS Computer Science
School of Computing and Informatics
Mobile : 520 582 4479