UI2Ont—A Formal Ontology on User Interfaces and Interactions

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

Abstract

Formal models of user interfaces are widely popular in the literature, and various user interface description languages exist. For several use cases, the use of ontologies as models for user interfaces has been discussed, leveraging the advantages of a machine-interpretable semantics of user interface components. However, a comprehensive ontology of user interfaces and interactions is not available. In this chapter, we discuss the UI2Ont ontology, an ontology of user interfaces and interactions, which reuses many concepts defined in different user interface description languages and grounds them in the formal top level ontology DOLCE. We discuss the rationales of developing the ontology, give an overview of its basic concepts, and show its application in a framework for application integration on the user interface level.

References

  1. Aßmann, U., Zschaler, S., & Wagner, G. (2006). Ontologies, meta-models, and the model-driven paradigm. In Ontologies for software engineering and software technology (pp. 249–273). Chap. 9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., & Kiko, K. (2006). On the relationship of ontologies and models. In S. Brockmans, J. Jung & Y. Sure (Eds.), LNI: Vol. 96. Workshop on meta-modelling (WoMM) (pp. 47–60). Bonn: GI. Google Scholar
  3. Babitski, G., Probst, F., Hoffmann, J., & Oberle, D. (2009). Ontology design for information integration in catastrophy management. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on applications of semantic technologies (AST’09). Google Scholar
  4. Babitski, G., Bergweiler, S., Grebner, O., Oberle, D., Paulheim, H., & Probst, F. (2011). SoKNOS—using semantic technologies in disaster management software. In The semantic web: research and applications (ESWC 2011), Part II (pp. 183–197). Google Scholar
  5. Bottazzi, E., Catenacci, C., Gangemi, A., & Lehmann, J. (2006). From collective intentionality to intentional collectives: an ontological perspective. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(2–3), 192–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., Bouillon, L., & Vanderdonckt, J. (2003). A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interacting With Computers, 15(3), 289–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coutaz, J., Lachenal, C., & Dupuy-Chessa, S. (2003). Ontology for multi-surface interaction. In Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT03: human–computer interaction (pp. 447–454). IFIP Technical Committee No 13 on Human-Computer Interaction. Google Scholar
  8. Fernández, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., & Juristo, N. (1997). METHONTOLOGY: from ontological art towards ontological engineering. In Proceedings of the AAAI97 spring symposium (pp. 33–40). Google Scholar
  9. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2002). FIPA device ontology specification. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00091/index.html.
  10. Fowler, M. (2003). Patterns of enterprise application architecture. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  11. Gangemi, A., & Mika, P. (2003). Understanding the semantic web through descriptions and situations. In LNCS: Vol. 2888. On the move to meaningful internet systems 2003: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE (pp. 689–706). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gangemi, A., Borgo, S., Catenacci, C., & Lehmann, J. (2005). Task taxonomies for knowledge content. http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/D07_v21a.pdf.
  13. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5–6), 907–928. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. A. (2009). An overview of OntoClean. In Handbook on ontologies (pp. 201–220). Chap. 10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guerrero-Garcia, J., Gonzalez-Calleros, J. M., Vanderdonckt, J., & Munoz-Arteaga, J. (2009). A theoretical survey of user interface description languages: preliminary results. In LA-WEB ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 Latin American web congress (LA-WEB 2009) (pp. 36–43). Los Alamitos: IEEE Comput. Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Happel, H.-J., Korthaus, A., Seedorf, S., & Tomczyk, P. (2006). KOntoR: an ontology-enabled approach to software reuse. In K. Zhang, G. Spanoudakis & G. Visaggio (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on software engineering & knowledge engineering (SEKE) (pp. 349–354). Google Scholar
  18. Henninger, S., Keshk, M., & Kinworthy, R. (2003). Capturing and disseminating usability patterns with semantic web technology. In CHI 2003 workshop: concepts and perspectives on HCI patterns. Google Scholar
  19. Jordà, S., Geiger, G., Alonso, M., & Kaltenbrunner, M. (2007). The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction (pp. 139–146). New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohlhase, A., & Kohlhase, M. (2009). Semantic transparency in user assistance systems. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM international conference on design of communication. Special interest group on design of communication (SIGDOC-09), Bloomingtion, IN, United States (pp. 89–96). New York: ACM Special Interest Group for Design of Communication, ACM. Google Scholar
  21. Laszlo Systems (2006). OpenLaszlo—an open architecture framework for advanced Ajax applications. http://www.openlaszlo.org/whitepaper/LaszloWhitePaper.pdf.
  22. Liu, B., Chen, H., & He, W. (2005). Deriving user interface from ontologies: a model-based approach. In ICTAI ’05: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (pp. 254–259). Los Alamitos: IEEE Comput. Soc. Google Scholar
  23. Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., & Oltramari, A. (2003). WonderWeb deliverable D18—ontology library (final). http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf.
  24. Mozilla (2011). XUL. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XUL.
  25. Myers, B. A., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Survey on user interface programming. In CHI ’92: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 195–202). New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OASIS (2009). User Interface Markup Language (UIML) version 4.0. http://docs.oasis-open.org/uiml/v4.0/uiml-4.0.html.
  27. Oberle, D., Grimm, S., & Staab, S. (2009). An ontology for software. In Handbook on ontologies (pp. 383–402). Chap. 18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paternò, F., Santoro, C., & Spano, L. D. (2008). XML languages for user interface models—deliverable D2.1 of the ServFace project. http://www.servface.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=5&Itemid=61.
  29. Paternò, F., Santoro, C., & Spano, L. D. (2009). MARIA: a universal, declarative, multiple abstraction-level language for service-oriented applications in ubiquitous environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(4), 1–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paternò, F., Santoro, C., Mäntyjärvi, J., Mori, G., & Sansone, S. (2008). Authoring pervasive multimodal user interfaces. International Journal on Web Engineering & Technology, 4(2), 235–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paulheim, H. (2010). Efficient semantic event processing: lessons learned in user interface integration. In The semantic web: research and applications (ESWC 2010), Part II (pp. 60–74). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paulheim, H. (2011). Ontology-based application integration. Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paulheim, H., & Erdogan, A. (2010). Seamless integration of heterogeneous UI components. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems (EICS 2010) (pp. 303–308). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paulheim, H., & Probst, F. (2010a). Application integration on the user interface level: an ontology-based approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering Journal, 69(11), 1103–1116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paulheim, H., & Probst, F. (2010b). Ontology-enhanced user interfaces: a survey. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 6(2), 36–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paulheim, H., & Probst, F. (2011). A formal ontology on user interfaces—yet another user interface description language? In Proceedings of the second workshop on semantic models for adaptive interactive systems (SEMAIS). Google Scholar
  37. Paulheim, H., Döweling, S., Tso-Sutter, K., Probst, F., & Ziegert, T. (2009). Improving usability of integrated emergency response systems: the SoKNOS approach. In LNI: Vol. 154. Proceedings “39. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI)—Informatik 2009” (pp. 1435–1449). Google Scholar
  38. Paulheim, H., Plendl, R., Probst, F., & Oberle, D. (2011). Mapping pragmatic class models to reference ontologies. In The 2011 IEEE 27th international conference on data engineering workshops—2nd international workshop on data engineering meets the semantic web (DESWeb) (pp. 200–205). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rauschmayer, A. (2005). Semantic-web-backed GUI applications. In Proceedings of the ISWC 2005 workshop on end user semantic web interaction. Google Scholar
  40. RedWhale Software (2000). The XIML specification. In XIML Starter Kit version 1. http://www.ximl.org/download/step1.asp.
  41. Ruiz, F., & Hilera, J. R. (2006). Using ontologies in software engineering and technology. In Ontologies for software engineering and software technology (pp. 49–102). Chap. 2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmidt, B., Paulheim, H., Stoitsev, T., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2011). Towards a formalization of individual work execution at computer workplaces. In LNCS: Vol. 6828. 19th international conference on conceptual structures (ICCS 2011) (pp. 270–283). Google Scholar
  43. Simon, R., Kapsch, M. J., & Wegscheider, F. (2004). A generic UIML vocabulary for device- and modality independent user interfaces. In WWW ALT ’04: Proceedings of the 13th international world wide web conference on alternate track papers & posters (pp. 434–435). New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Souchon, N., & Vanderdonckt, J. (2003). A review of XML-compliant user interface description languages. In LNCS: Vol. 2844. Interactive systems. Design, specification, and verification (pp. 377–391). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spyns, P., Meersmanand, R., & Jarrar, M. (2002). Data modelling versus ontology engineering. SIGMOD Record, 31(4), 12–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Studer, R., Grimm, S., & Abecker, A. (Eds.) (2007). Semantic web services—concepts, technologies and applications. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  47. Uschold, M., & Grüninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11, 93–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uschold, M., & King, M. (1995). Towards a methodology for building ontologies. In Workshop on basic ontological issues in knowledge sharing. Google Scholar
  49. UsiXML Consortium (2007). USer interface extensible markup language, v1.8, reference manual. http://www.usixml.org/index.php?mod=download&file=usixml-doc/UsiXML_v1.8.0-Documentation.pdf.
  50. W3C (2004a). Composite capability/preference profiles (CC/PP): structure and vocabularies 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/.
  51. W3C (2004b). SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/.
  52. W3C (2009). XForms 1.1. http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/l.
  53. W3C (2010). Delivery context ontology. http://www.w3.org/TR/dcontology/.
  54. W3C (2011a). Accessible rich internet applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/.
  55. W3C (2011b). HTML5—a vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.SAP ResearchDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations