based techniques. Of course, this raises issues once again Conference, (IS wC2006 Georgia, USA of the integrity/quality of a dataset. For example, data November 5-9. 2006 recently collected from DBLP would indicate skewed [4 Harth, A, Umbrich, J. and Decker, S: MultiCrawler: A expertise information because potential PC candidates Pipelined Architecture for Crawling and Indexing Semantic would have more published material since last serving of Web Data. 5th International Semantic Web Conference Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006 a previous Program Committee. Similarly, new P( 5 Kraines, S, Guo, W, Kemper, B. and Nakamura Y. members would have emerged through published research. For example, ICDE conferences have a large EKOSS: A Knowledge-user Centered Approach to Knowledge Sharing, Discovery and Integration on the number of researchers on its program committee, which Semantic Web. 5th International Semantic Web Conference includes new members every year. To address these issues Athens. GA USA. November 2006 we make two observations. First, we note that one of the [6] Liu, P and Dew, P: Using Semantic Web Technologies to benefits of adding expertise data to existing ontologies Improve Expertise Matching within Academia, Proceedings such as SwetoDblp is that further details can be provided of I-KNow, Graz, Austria, June 2004 when results of potential reviewers are listed. For [7 Mockus, A, Herbsleb, J D: Expertise Browser: A example, the relevant publication titles and/or publication (2002), Orlando Florida, USA, May 2002 venues could be provided to a PC Chair who is trying to [8] Papagelis, M, Plexousakis, D. and Nikolaou, P N determine whether or not to invite a researcher for the pc CONFIOUS*: Managing the Electronic Submission and of a conference. Second, we are afforded an opportunity Reviewing Process of Scientific Conferences, 6th to perform expertise analytics on PC members over International Conference on Web Information Systems several conferences by observing expertise growth of Engineering, New York, NY, USA, 2005 seasoned researchers in particular domains 19 Rodriguez, M.A. and Bollen, J: An Algorithm to Determine Peer-Reviewers, (submitted), LA-UR-06-2261, December 5 Conclusions http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/-okram/papers/referee- dentification. pdf [10 Song, X, Tseng, B L, Lin, C -Y. and Sun, M.-T Finding both expertise experts is a topic of importance in practical applications. In industrial settings Modeling, 10th Intermational Conference on User it is particularly important because there are significant Modeling, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 2005 economic implications involved with locating and employing the most qualified experts in a project. In academia, it is also important to facilitate the tasks involved in peer-review. In this paper, we described our preliminary efforts and ideas for collection of expertise We also discussed some of the benefits and challenges involved. We described the importance of finding PC members for a conference and listed possible ways for evaluating computer-based methods by using on data of PC members in past conferences. We bel techniques based on semantic technologies will prove useful in Expert Finder applications References 1 AlemaN B. Hakim A P. SwetoDblp Ontology of Computer Science ublications (su http://lsdis.cs.ugaedu/projects/semdis/swetodblp/swetodbl p-AHASO6. pdf) 2 Aleman- Meza, B, Nagarajan, M, Ramakrishnan, C, Ding, L, Kolari, P, Sheth, A.P., Arpinar, l.B., Joshi, A, Finin, Addressing the problem of Conflict of Interest Detection, 1 5th International World wide Web Conference www2006), Edinburgh, Sc K May 2006 [ Celma, O. Foafing the Music: Bridging the Semantic Gap in Music recommendation 5th International Semantic Webbased techniques. Of course, this raises issues once again of the integrity/quality of a dataset. For example, data recently collected from DBLP would indicate skewed expertise information because potential PC candidates would have more published material since last serving on a previous Program Committee. Similarly, new PC members would have emerged through published research. For example, ICDE conferences have a large number of researchers on its program committee, which includes new members every year. To address these issues we make two observations. First, we note that one of the benefits of adding expertise data to existing ontologies such as SwetoDblp is that further details can be provided when results of potential reviewers are listed. For example, the relevant publication titles and/or publication venues could be provided to a PC Chair who is trying to determine whether or not to invite a researcher for the PC of a conference. Second, we are afforded an opportunity to perform expertise analytics on PC members over several conferences by observing expertise growth of seasoned researchers in particular domains. 5. Conclusions Finding both expertise and experts is a topic of importance in practical applications. In industrial settings it is particularly important because there are significant economic implications involved with locating and employing the most qualified experts in a project. In academia, it is also important to facilitate the tasks involved in peer-review. In this paper, we described our preliminary efforts and ideas for collection of expertise. We also discussed some of the benefits and challenges involved. We described the importance of finding PC members for a conference and listed possible ways for evaluating computer-based methods by using on data of PC members in past conferences. We believe that techniques based on semantic technologies will prove useful in ExpertFinder applications. References [1] Aleman-Meza, B., Hakimpour, F., Arpinar, I.B., Sheth, A.P.: SwetoDblp Ontology of Computer Science Publications (submitted for publication, http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/semdis/swetodblp/SwetoDbl p-AHAS06.pdf) [2] Aleman-Meza, B., Nagarajan, M., Ramakrishnan, C., Ding, L., Kolari, P., Sheth, A.P., Arpinar, I.B., Joshi, A., Finin, T.: Semantic Analytics on Social Networks: Experiences in Addressing the Problem of Conflict of Interest Detection, 15th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2006), Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, May 2006 [3] Celma, O.: Foafing the Music: Bridging the Semantic Gap in Music Recommendation, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, (ISWC2006) Athens, Georgia, USA, November 5-9, 2006 [4] Harth, A., Umbrich, J. and Decker, S.: MultiCrawler: A Pipelined Architecture for Crawling and Indexing Semantic Web Data, 5th International Semantic Web Conference Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006 [5] Kraines, S, Guo, W., Kemper, B. and Nakamura Y.: EKOSS: A Knowledge-user Centered Approach to Knowledge Sharing, Discovery and Integration on the Semantic Web, 5th International Semantic Web Conference Athens, GA, USA, November 2006 [6] Liu, P. and Dew, P.: Using Semantic Web Technologies to Improve Expertise Matching within Academia, Proceedings of I-KNOW, Graz, Austria, June 2004 [7] Mockus, A., Herbsleb, J.D.: Expertise Browser: A Quantitative Approach to Identifying Expertise, ICSE (2002), Orlando Florida, USA, May 2002 [8] Papagelis, M., Plexousakis, D. and Nikolaou, P.N.: CONFIOUS*: Managing the Electronic Submission and Reviewing Process of Scientific Conferences, 6th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, New York, NY, USA, 2005. [9] Rodriguez, M.A. and Bollen, J.: An Algorithm to Determine Peer-Reviewers, (submitted), LA-UR-06-2261, December 2005 http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/referee￾identification.pdf [10] Song, X., Tseng, B.L., Lin, C.-Y. and Sun, M.-T.: ExpertiseNet: Relational and Evolutionary Expert Modeling, 10th International Conference on User Modeling, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 2005