Cognitive Semantic Categories as a Basis for a Prototype Adaptive Information System

Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

A software application is demonstrated which exhibits conceptual data independence. The application provides domain-specific functionality, yet its structure is domain-independent. Separation between conceptual model and structure is achieved by encoding models as data and interpreting them at run-time. The overall goal is to reduce cost and delay when conceptual models change, and to provide application functionality in new domains without constructing new applications. Several conceptual models are used, to illustrate domain-specific behavior in multiple domains. Results suggest that domain-independent application design can reduce the need for application development and maintenance effort, since each domain-independent application can function in multiple domains and adapts smoothly to changing conceptual models. This is especially meaningful for end users who usually have no development skills and rely on spreadsheet and database driven applications.

Keywords

Sorting Editing Prosopagnosia 

References

  1. Alani, H., Kalfoglou, Y., O’Hara, K., & Shadbolt, N. (2005). Towards a killer app for the semantic web. In The semantic Web–ISWC 2005 (pp. 829–843). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alani, H., Hall, W., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N., Szomszor, M., & Chandler, P. (2008). Building a pragmatic semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(3), 61–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakke, E., Karger, D., & Miller, R. (2011). A spreadsheet-based user interface for managing plural relationships in structured data. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’11 (pp. 2541–2550). New York: ACM. Google Scholar
  4. Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., Hendler, J., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N., Weitzner, D. J., et al. (2006). A framework for web science. Foundations and Trends in Web Science, 1(1), 1–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berners-Lee, T., Hollenbach, J., Lu, K., Presbrey, J., Pru d’ommeaux, E., et al. (2007). Tabulator redux: writing into the semantic web. Google Scholar
  6. Caramazza, A., Mahon, B. Z., et al. (2003). The organization of conceptual knowledge: the evidence from category-specific semantic deficits. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 354–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan, Y. E., & Storey, V. C. (1996). The use of spreadsheets in organizations: determinants and consequences. Information & Management, 31(3), 119–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Codd, E. F. (1970). A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6), 377–387. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curino, C. A., Tanca, L., Moon, H. J., & Zaniolo, C. (2008). Schema evolution in Wikipedia: toward a web information system benchmark. In International conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS). Citeseer. Google Scholar
  10. Ertl, D., Kaindl, H., Arnautovic, E., Falb, J., & Popp, R. (2011). Generating high-level interaction models out of ontologies. In IUI SEMAIS (Vol. 11, pp. 7–11). Google Scholar
  11. Evamy, M. (2003). World without words. New York: Laurence King. Google Scholar
  12. Fein, E., Razinkov, N., Shachor, S., Mazzoleni, P., Goh, S., Goodwin, R., et al. (2011). Using MATCON to generate case tools that guide deployment of pre-packaged applications. In 2011 33rd international conference on software engineering (ICSE) (pp. 1016–1018). New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  13. Fonseca, F. T., & Martin, J. E. (2004). Toward an alternative notion of information systems ontologies: information engineering as a hermeneutic enterprise. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 46–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freud, S. (1953 (1891)). On aphasia; a critical study. Madison: International Universities Press. Google Scholar
  15. Hartung, M., Terwilliger, J. F., & Rahm, E. (2011). Recent advances in schema and ontology evolution. In Schema matching and mapping (pp. 149–190). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hick, J.-M., & Hainaut, J.-L. (2006). Database application evolution: a transformational approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 59(3), 534–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennedy, O., Ahmad, Y., & Koch, C. (2011). DBToaster: agile views for a dynamic data management system. In Proc. of the fifth biennial conference on innovative data systems research (CIDR 2011) (pp. 284–295). Google Scholar
  18. Klibanoff, R. S., & Waxman, S. R. (2003). Basic level object categories support the acquisition of novel adjectives: evidence from preschool-aged children. Child Development, 71(3), 649–659. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kohlhase, A., & Kohlhase, M. K. (2011). Spreadsheets with a semantic layer. Electronic Communications of the EASST, 10, 1–18. Google Scholar
  20. LENA—a Fresnel LEns based RDF/Linked Data NAvigator with SPARQL selector support (n.d.). Google Scholar
  21. Liebenau, J., & Backhouse, J. (1990). Understanding information: an introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  22. Markman, A. B., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). Similar and different: the differentiation of basic-level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason, M. F., Banfield, J. F., & Macrae, C. N. (2004). Thinking about actions: the neural substrates of person knowledge. Cerebral Cortex, 14(2), 209–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McGinnes, S. (2000). Conceptual modelling: a psychological perspective. Doctoral dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London). Google Scholar
  25. McGinnes, S. (2005). Systems and methods for software based on business concepts. Google Scholar
  26. McGinnes, S., & Amos, J. (2001). Accelerated business concept modeling: combining user interface design with object modeling. In Object modeling and user interface design (pp. 3–36). Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  27. McGuinness, D. L., Fikes, R., Rice, J., & Wilder, S. (2000). An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning-international conference (pp. 483–493). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, J. P., Heatherton, T. F., & Macrae, C. N. (2002). Distinct neural systems subserve person and object knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(23), 15238–15243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, C. J., & Price, C. J. (1999). A functional neuroimaging study of the variables that generate category-specific object processing differences. Brain, 122(5), 943–962. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (2000). Algorithm and tool for automated ontology merging and alignment. In Proceedings of the 17th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-00). Available as SMI technical report SMI-2000-0831. Google Scholar
  31. O’Murchú, N. (2009). Understanding adaptive design and user experience. In Irish human computer interaction (I-HCI) conference 2009. Google Scholar
  32. Pascual-Leone, A., Hamilton, R., Tormos, J., Keenan, J., & Catala, M. (1999). Neuroplasticity in the adjustment to blindness. In Neural plasticity: building a bridge from the laboratory to the clinic (pp. 94–108). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  33. Raden, N. (2005). Shedding light on shadow it: is Excel running your business? DSSResources.com, 26. Google Scholar
  34. Roddick, J. F., Al-Jadir, L., Bertossi, L., Dumas, M., Gregersen, H., Hornsby, K., et al. (2000). Evolution and change in data management—issues and directions. ACM SIGMOD Record, 29(1), 21–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shirky, C. (2003). The semantic web, syllogism and worldview. In Networks, economics, and culture. Google Scholar
  36. Sun, Y., Gray, J., & White, J. (2011). Mt-scribe: an end-user approach to automate software model evolution. In 2011 33rd international conference on software engineering (ICSE) (pp. 980–982). New York: IEEE Press. Google Scholar
  37. Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wach, E. P. (2011). Automated ontology evolution as a basis for adaptive interactive systems. In IUI SEMAIS 11 (pp. 467–468). Google Scholar
  39. Whitehouse, R. (1999). The uniqueness of individual perception. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design (pp. 103–129). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  40. Zhao, C.-c., Zhao, L.-y., & Wang, H.-l. (2010). A spreadsheet system based on data semantic object. In 2010 the 2nd IEEE international conference on information management and engineering (ICIME) (pp. 407–411). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations