Advertisement

An Ontology to Model Collaborative Organizational Structures in CSCW Systems

  • Victor M. R. Penichet
  • Maria D. Lozano
  • Jose A. Gallud
Chapter

Abstract

This paper presents a conceptual model to represent the organizational structure of the users in a CSCW system and their cooperative interactions, that is, interactions between them through the system. We define this conceptual model and its associated ontology with the aim of defining in a precise way the main concepts and their relationships used in the development of CSCW systems. This vocabulary description eases the representation, specification, analysis, and design of this kind of environments. Such common concepts are absolutely necessary because all the artefacts needed to model a collaborative system will be built starting from them. Therefore they should be used in a coherent and non-ambiguous way. This ontology will be the base for the further definition of the models involved in the development of collaborative systems.

Keywords

Organizational Structure Multiagent System Granularity Level Cooperative Interaction Final User 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brickley, D., Miller, L. (2005)FOAF Vocabulary Specification. http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/,Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caetano, A., Silva, A. R., and Tribolet, J. (2005)Using roles and business objects to model and understand business processes. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing.L. M. Liebrock, Ed. SAC ’05. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1308-1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garrido Bullejos, José Luis (2003)AMENITIES: Una metodología para el desarrollo de sistemas cooperativos basada en modelos de comportamiento y tareas. Tesis Doctoral. GranadaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruber, T.R. (1993)A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199-220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruber, Th. (2005)Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges. Invited paper/keynote to the First on-Line conference on Metadata and Semantics Research (MTSR’05), November 2005Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marshak, R.T. (1997)Workflow: Applying Automation to Group Processes. In: Coleman, D. (ed.): Groupware - Collaborative Strategies for Corporate LANs and Intranets. Prentice Hall PTR, 143-181Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGuinness, Deborah L. (2002)Ontologies Come of Age. In Dieter Fensel, J im Hendler, Henry Lieberman, and Wolfgang Wahlster, editors. Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press,Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mellouli, S., Mineau, G. W., and Pascot, D. (2002)The integrated modeling of multi-agent systems and their environment. First international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 1. AAMAS ’02. ACM Press, New York, , 507-508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molina, A. I. (2006)Una Propuesta Metodológica para el Desarrollo de la Interfaz de Usuario en Sistemas Groupware. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odell, J., Nodine, M., and Levy, R. (2005)A Metamodel for Agents, Roles, and Groups. Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) V, James Odell, P. Giorgini, Jörg Müller, eds., Lecture Notes on Computer Science volume, Springer, Berlin,Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG, Object Management Group. (2005)UML Superstructure Specification, v2.0;Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Reilly, T. (2005)What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Published on O’Reilly (http://www.oreilly.com/). http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paterno’, F. (1999)Model-based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications. F. Paternò, Springer Verlag, November 1999, ISBN 1-85233-155-0Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Penichet, Victor M. R.; Paternò, Fabio; Gallud, J. A.; Lozano, M. (2006)Collaborative Social Structures and Task Modelling Integration. Proceedings DSV-IS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag; I.S.B.N.: 978-3-540-69553-0. Dublin, Ireland. 27 Jul 2006Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S. (2003)Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) Volume 10 , Issue 4, Pages: 281 - 311. ISSN:1073-0516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rumbaugh, J.; Jacobson, I.; Booch, G. (1999)The Unified Modeling Language. Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tantek, Ç. (2005)Microformats. http://tanket.com http://microformats.org.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Traetteberg, H. Modeling work: Workflow and Task Modeling. CADUI’99. 275-280Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van der Veer, G. C.; Van Welie, M. (2000)Task based groupware design: Putting theory into practice. In Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems. New York, ACM Press, 326–337.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vander Wal, Th. (2004)Off the Top: Folksonomy. http://www.vanderwal.net/random/category.php?cat=153.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Dyke Parunak, H. and Odell, J. (2001)Representing social structures in UML. In Proceedings of the Fifth international Conference on Autonomous Agents. AGENTS ’01. ACM Press, New York, NY, 100-101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    W3C. (2004)OWL Web Ontology Language http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor M. R. Penichet
    • 1
  • Maria D. Lozano
    • 1
  • Jose A. Gallud
    • 1
  1. 1.I3A-UCLM, Av. Espana s/n02007 AlbaceteSpain

Personalised recommendations