Transactional Consistency in User Modeling Systems

  • Josef Fink
Conference paper
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 407)


It is widely accepted that the consistency of adaptive interfaces is crucial for their usability. Many threats for consistency in adaptive applications have been reported in the literature so far (e.g., consistency of adaptation methods and techniques, consistency of the user model). In this paper we argue that many, if not all, user modeling systems that have been developed so far are substantially threatening consistency by offering no adequate means for communicating consistency contexts. This is especially the case for user modeling servers, which are supposed to serve several applications in parallel. In order to prevent consistency problems in user modeling systems, we introduce basic concepts and techniques from transaction management. User modeling systems that adhere to the principles of transaction management can be expected to provide a reliable source of user information for adaptive applications, especially in real world settings.


User Modeling Consistency Problem Transaction Management Adaptive Application Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernstein, P. A., Hadzilacos, V., and Goodman, N. (1987). Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Brajnik, G., and Tasso, C. (1994). A shell for developing non-monotonic user modeling systems. Internationaljournal of Human-Computer Studies 40:31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brusilovsky, P. (1996). Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(2):59–106.Google Scholar
  4. Brusilovsky, P., Ritter, S., and Schwarz, E. (1997). Distributed intelligent tutoring on the Web. In du Boulay, B., and Mizoguchi, R., eds., Proceedings of AI-ED’97. Amsterdam: IOS. 482–489.Google Scholar
  5. Finin, T. W. (1989). GUMS: A general user modeling shell. In Kobsa, A., and Wahlster, W., eds., User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fink, J., Kobsa, A., and Nill, A. (1997). Adaptable and adaptive information access for all users, including the disabled and the elderly. In Jameson, A., Paris, C., and Tasso, C., eds., User Modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference. Wien, New York: Springer. 171–173.Google Scholar
  7. Gray, J., and Reuter, A. (1993). Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO. (1995). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals, Part 13, User guidance. International Standard.Google Scholar
  9. ISO. (1996). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals, Part 12, Ergonomie requirements for presentation of information. Draft International Standard.Google Scholar
  10. Kay, J. (1995). The um toolkit for reusable, long term user models. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(3):149–196.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Kobsa, A., and Pohl, W. (1995). The user modeling shell system BGP-MS. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(2):59–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kobsa, A., Fink, J., and Pohl, W. (1996). A Standard for the Performatives in the Communication between Applications and User Modeling Systems (draft). Available at Scholar
  13. Kummerfeld, R., and Kay, J. (1997). Remote access protocols for user modelling. In Proceedings and Resource kit for Workshop User Models in the Real World. Chia Laguna, Sardinia. 12–15.Google Scholar
  14. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Orfali, R., Harkey, D., and Edwards, J. (1994). Essential Client/Server Survival Guide. New York, Singapore: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Orwant, J. (1995). Heterogeneous learning in the Doppelgänger user modeling system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(2): 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paiva, A., and Self, J. (1995). TAGUS-A user and learner modeling workbench. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(3): 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saake, G., Schmitt, L, and Türker, C. (1997). Objektdatenbanken — Konzepte, Sprachen, Architekturen. Bonn, London: Thomson.Google Scholar
  19. Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. New York, Tokyo: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S. (1997). Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3). Available at Scholar
  21. Weber, G., and Specht, M. (1997). User modeling and adaptive navigation support in WWW-based tutoring systems. In Jameson, A., Paris, C., and Tasso, C., eds., User Modeling: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference. Wien, New York: Springer. 289–300.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Fink
    • 1
  1. 1.GMD FIT, German National Research Center for Information TechnologySankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations