Contextual Graphs for Modeling Group Interaction

  • Kimberly GarcíaEmail author
  • Patrick Brézillon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10257)


In a vast range of domains, decision makers have taken advantages of the benefits of the Contextual-Graph (CxG) formalism for representing the way(s) an actor(s) executes a real-world task. For this purpose, the CxG software formalism provides actors with edition tools that help them create and explore contextual graphs in an intuitive manner. However, the modeling of group interaction requires the introduction of new elements for managing each actor’s intervention. In this paper, we incorporate simulation functionalities to the CxG software. The simulation of a task execution relies heavily on the concept of working context, which corresponds to the contextual elements existing in a CxG, their value, and their instantiations taken during the simulation, as well as the instantiation of the simulation parameters for managing the turn mechanism.


Contextual model Turns mechanism Simulation Group task Collaborative work 



We thank the CONACyT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología) for funding Kimberly García’s post-doctoral fellowship at LIP6, UPMC.


  1. 1.
    Attieh, E., Capron, F., Brézillon, P.: Context-based modeling of an anatomo-cyto-pathology department workflow for quality control. In: Brézillon, P., Blackburn, P., Dapoigny, R. (eds.) CONTEXT 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8175, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40972-1_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design: A Customer-Centered Approach to Systems Designs. Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies (1997) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brézillon, P.: Context modeling: task model and practice model. In: Kokinov, B., Richardson, D.C., Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Vieu, L. (eds.) CONTEXT 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4635, pp. 122–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74255-5_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brézillon, P.: Context-centered tools for intelligent assistant systems. In: Brézillon, P., Gonzalez, A.J. (eds.) Context in Computing, pp. 97–110. Springer, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brézillon, P., Attieh, E., Capron, F.: Modeling glocal search in a decision-making process. In: DSS 2.0 Supporting Decision Making with New Technologies, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 80–91. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brézillon, P.: Contextual modeling of group activities. In: Brézillon, P., et al. (eds.) CONTEXT 2017, The International Conference in Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT-2017), LNAI, vol. 10257, pp. 113–126. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carlsen, S.: Action port model: a mixed paradigm conceptual workflow modeling language. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan, X., Zhang, R., Li, L., Brézillon, P.: Contextualizing workflow in cooperative design. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD-11), pp. 17–22. IEEE, Lausanne (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    García, K., Brézillon, P.: A contextual model of turns for group work. In: Christiansen, H., Stojanovic, I., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) CONTEXT 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9405, pp. 243–256. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25591-0_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larman, C.: Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molina, A.I., Gallardo, J., Redondo, M.A., Ortega, M., Giraldo, W.J.: Metamodel-driven definition of a visual modeling language for specifying interactive groupware applications: an empirical study. J. Syst. Softw. 86(7), 1772–1789 (2013). ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paternó, F.: ConcurTaskTrees: an engineered notation for task models. In: The Hand-Book of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 483–503. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pomerol, J.-Ch., Brezillon, P.: Dynamics between contextual knowledge and proceduralized context. In: Bouquet, P., Benerecetti, M., Serafini, L., Brézillon, P., Castellani, F. (eds.) CONTEXT 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1688, pp. 284–295. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-48315-2_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Welie, M., Van Der Veer, G.: Groupware task analysis. In: Handbook of Cognitive Task Design. Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 447–476 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Pierre and Marie Curie (UPMC)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations