Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 97–120 | Cite as

TMS for multimodal information processing

  • Barbara Rita Barricelli
  • Piero Mussio
  • Marco Padula
  • Paolo Luigi Scala
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Many working processes are complex and composed by heterogeneous atomic tasks, e.g. editing, assembling data from different sources (as databases or laboratory's devices) with texts, images or learning objects, or submitting them to software components to retrieve information, to render them, re-format, submit to computations, and other types of information processing. All these processes heavily require procedural knowledge which is tacit as owned by experts of the working activity; they are complex and are extremely difficult to be modeled and automatized without having a flexible, multimodular evolutionary system in place. Support to information from different modalities increases the performance of a computer system originally designed for a task with a unimodular nature. In this paper, we discuss the idea of task management system (TMS) as a component-based system which offers a virtual workbench to search, acquire, describe and assemble computational agents performing single autonomous tasks into working processes. We sustain that TMS is a cutting edge platform to develop software solutions for problems related to workflow automatization and design. The architecture we propose follows the conceptual track of the TMS to allow composition and arrangement of atomic modules into a complex system. A configuration of the workflow can be implemented and extended with a set of task/components, chunks of activities which are considered basic elements of the workflow. By interacting with the TMS in editing mode, the workflow designer selects the relevant chunks from system repositories, drags them into a working system area and assembles them into a working process. As the main actor of the system, the workflow designer is provided with an environment resembling an artisan’s workshop, to let her/him select the relevant chunks from system repositories, drags them into a working area and assembles them into a working TMS instance, which represents the working process. Global interaction modality of the TMS instance is moulded and specialized on the base of the specific modalities of the task/components which have been retrieved from the system repositories and each time negotiated. Complex activities could be formally described, implemented and applied with a consequent advantage for personnel re-organization toward more conceptual activities.

Keywords

Task management system Component-based systems Workflow Multimodal information Reusability Tailorability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the colleagues Sergio Bobbo, Stefano Rossi and Antonella Barizza for their cooperation and patience in defining the systems requirements and in testing the realized applications.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmad S, Oliveira PFC, Ahmad K (2004) Summarization of multimodal information. Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp 1049–1052Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ankolekar A (2001) DAML-S: semantic markup for web services. The first semantic web working symposium. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 411–430Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arias EG, Fischer G (2000) Boundary objects: their role in articulating the task at hand and making information relevant to it. In: Proc. of ICC′2000. ICSC Academic, Wetaskiwin, pp 567–574Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armour P (2001) Software as currency. CACM 44(3):13–14Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armour P (2009) The ontology of paper. CACM 52(1):23–24Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barricelli BR, Marcante A, Mussio P, Parasiliti Provenza L, Padula M, Scala PL (2009) Designing pervasive and multimodal interactive systems: an approach built on the Field. In: Grifoni P (ed) Handbook of research on multimodal human computer interaction and pervasive services: evolutionary techniques for improving accessibility, IGI, pp 243–264Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bianchi A, Bottoni P, Mussio P (1999) Issues in design and implementation of multimedia software systems. Proc. IEEE Int. Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, pp.91–96 (Invited Paper)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bush A, Tiwana A (2005) Designing sticky knowledge networks. CACM 48(5):67–71Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charfi A, Dinkelaker T, Mezini M (2009) A plug-in architecture for self-adaptive web service compositions. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE international Conference on Web Services (ICWS2009), IEEE Computer Society, pp 35–42Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chinthaka E, Ekanayake J, Leake D, Plale B (2009) CBR based workflow composition assistant. Proceedings of the 2009 Congress on Services (ISERVICES 2009). IEEE Computer Society, pp 352–355Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Costabile MF, Fogli D, Mussio P, Piccinno A (2006) End-user development: the software shaping workshop approach. In: Lieberman H, Paternò F, Wulf V (eds) End user development. Springer, Dodrecht, pp 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costabile MF, Fogli D, Mussio P, Piccinno A (2007) Visual interactive systems for end-user development: a model-based design methodology. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 37(6):1029–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desouza K (2003) Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. CACM 46(6):85–88Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fox J, Borenstein J (2003) Semantic discovery for web services. In: SOA World Magazine. http://soa.sys-con.com/node/39718 Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  15. 15.
    Georgolios P, Kafentzis K, Mentzas G (2007) Knowledge, provision with intelligent E-Services. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(5):501–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ginige A (2003) Re-engineering software development process for eBusiness application development. Proceedings of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ha Y, Lee R (2006) Integration of semantic web service and component-based development for e-business environment. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA′06), pp 315–323Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartson HR, Hix D (1989) Human-compiter interface development: concepts and systems for its management. ACM Comput Surv 21(1):5–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henderson A, Kyng M (1991) There’s no place like home: continuing design in use. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 219–240Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herzum P, Sims O (2000) Business component factory: a comprehensive overview of component-based development for the enterprise. Wiley, SomersetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang JC, Newell S, Galliers RD, Pan SL (2003) Dangerous liaisons? Component-based development and organizational subcultures. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 50(1):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mackay WE (1990) Patterns of sharing customizable software. Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp 209–221Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mentzas G, Kafentsis K, Georgolios P (2007) Knowledge services on the semantic web. CACM 50(10):53–58Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller NG (2000) Task management system, U.S. Patent 6,101,481Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ncube C, Oberndorf P, Kark AW (2008) Opportunistic software systems development: making systems from what’s available. IEEE Softw 25(6):38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oshri I, Newell S, Pan SL (2007) Implementing component reuse strategy in complex products environments. CACM 50(12):63–67Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oviatt S (1997) Multimodal interactive maps: designing for human performance. Human-Comput Interact 12:93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oviatt S (2002) Multimodal interfaces. In: Jacko J, Sears (eds.) A handbook of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 286–304Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    OWL Web Ontology Language Overview W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  31. 31.
    OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122/ Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  32. 32.
    Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T (1994) Human computer interaction. Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ Accessed 20 Feb 2010
  34. 34.
    Sarter NB (2006) Multimodal information presentation: design guidance and research challenges. Int J Ind Ergon 36:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scheer AW, Nüttgens M (2000) ARIS architecture and reference models for business process management. In: van der Aalst WMP, Desel J, Oberweis A (eds) Business process management—models, techniques and empirical studies, LNCS 1806. Springer, Berlin, pp 366–379Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shalil M, Shields M, Taylor I, Wang I (2004) Triana: a graphical web service composition and execution toolkit. IEEE International Conference on Web Services, IEEE Computer Society, pp 514Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stevens G, Quaisser G, Klann M (2006) Breaking it up: an industrial case study of component-based tailorable software design. In: Lieberman H, Paternò F, Wulf V (eds) End user development. Springer, Dodrecht, pp 269–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sycara K, Paolucci M, Ankolekar A, Srinivasan N (2003) Automated discovery, interaction and composition of Semantic Web services Export. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 1(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Szyperski C (2000) Component software and the way ahead. In: Leavens GT, Sitaraman M (eds) Foundations of component-based systems. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Szyperski C (2002) Component software, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Szyperski C, Pfister C (1997) Workshop on component-oriented programming, summary. In: Mühläuser M (ed) Special issue in object-oriented programming—ECOOP ′96. Heidelberg, Dpunkt VerlagGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wenger E, Mcdermott R, Snyder WM (2002) Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wu Z, Ranabahu A, Gomadam K, Sheth AP, Miller JA (2007) Kno.e.sis Center, Technical Report at Wright State UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Rita Barricelli
    • 1
  • Piero Mussio
    • 1
  • Marco Padula
    • 2
  • Paolo Luigi Scala
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e ComunicazioneUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Istituto per le Tecnologie della CostruzioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations