Advertisement

Full Semantic Transparency: Overcoming Boundaries of Applications

  • Andrea Kohlhase
  • Michael Kohlhase
  • Constantin Jucovschi
  • Alexandru Toader
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8119)

Abstract

Complex workflows require intelligent interactions. In this paper we attack the problem of combining user interfaces of specialized applications that support different aspects of objects in scientific/technical workflows with semantic technologies. We analyze the problem in terms of the (new) notion of full semantic transparency, i.e., the property of user interfaces to give full access to an underlying semantic object even beyond application lines. In a multi-application case full semantic transparency is difficult, but can be achieved by representing the semantic objects in a structured ontology and actively supporting the application-specific framings of an object in a semantic interface manager. We evaluate the proposed framework in a situation where aspects of technical constructions are distributed across a CAD system, a spreadsheet application, and a knowledge base.

Keywords

Full semantic transparency multi-application Semantic Alliance frame shifts spreadsheets CAD systems semantic services 

References

  1. 1.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design. ACM Interactions 6(1), 32–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bull, R.I.: Integrating Dynamic Views Using Model Driven Development. In: Proceedings of CASCON 2006, Riverton, NJ, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jeuring, J., Campbell, J.A., Carette, J., Dos Reis, G., Sojka, P., Wenzel, M., Sorge, V. (eds.): CICM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7362. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    David, C., Jucovschi, C., Kohlhase, A., Kohlhase, M.: Semantic Alliance: A Framework for Semantic Allies. In: [3], pp. 49–64 (2012), http://kwarc.info/kohlhase/papers/mkm12-Sally.pdf
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Dervin, B.: Sense-Making Theory and Practice: An Overview of User Interests in Knowledge Seeking and Use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(2), 36–46 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Díaz, O., Iturrioz, J., Irastorza, A.: Improving Portlet Interoperability through Deep Annotation. In: WWW 2005, New York, NY, USA, pp. 372–381 (2005) ISBN 1-59593-046-9Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iturrioz, J., Diaz, O., Anzuola, S.F.: Toward the Semantic Desktop: The seMouse Approach. IEEE Intelligent Systems 23, 24–31 (2008) ISSN 1541-1672Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohlhase, A., Kohlhase, M.: Semantic Transparency in User Assistance Systems. In: [13], pp. 89–96 (2009), http://kwarc.info/kohlhase/papers/sigdoc09-semtrans.pdf
  10. 10.
    Kolko, J.: Sensemaking and Framing: A Theoretical Reflection on Perspective in Design Synthesis (2010), www.jonkolko.com/projectFiles/preso/kolko_2010_07_sensemaking.pdf
  11. 11.
    le Roux, D.B., le Roux, G.P.: People Frames: The Social Construction of Information Systems. In: CHiMiT 2010, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1:1–1:9 (2010) ISBN 978-1-4503-0447-4Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liguda, C.: Modeling the Structure of Spreadsheets. In: LWA 2012, pp. 13–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mehlenbacher, B., Protopsaltis, A., Williams, A., Slatterey, S (eds.): Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Int. Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC). ACM Press, ACM Special Interest Group for Design of Communication, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nardi, B.A.: Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition, pp. 69–102 (1995) ISBN 0-262-14058-6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    North, C., Shneiderman, B.: Snap-together Visualization: a User Interface for Coordinating Visualizations via Relational Schemata, New York, NY, USA, pp. 128–135 (2000) ISBN 1-58113-252-2Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pirolli, P.: Information Foraging Theory, Oxford Series in Human-Technology Interaction. Oxford University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sauermann, L., Grimnes, G.A., Kiesel, M., Fluit, C., Maus, H., Heim, D., Nadeem, D., Horak, B., Dengel, A.: Semantic Desktop 2.0: The Gnowsis Experience. The Semantic Web 6, 887–900 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sharma, N.: Role of Available and Provided Resources in Sense-Making. In: CHI 2011, New York, USA, pp. 1807–1816 (2011) ISBN 978-1-4503-0228-9Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suchman, L.A.: Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication, Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press (1987, 1994 )Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tudorache, T., Noy, N.F., Falconer, S.M., Musen, M.A.: A Knowledge Base Driven User Interface for Collaborative Ontology Development. In: IUI 2011, New York, NY, USA, pp. 411–414 (2011) ISBN 978-1-4503-0419-1Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weick, K.E.: Sense-Making in Organizations. Sage Publications Inc. (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Kohlhase
    • 1
  • Michael Kohlhase
    • 1
  • Constantin Jucovschi
    • 1
  • Alexandru Toader
    • 1
  1. 1.Jacobs University BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations