(De-)Composing Web Augmenters

  • Sergio Firmenich
  • Irene Garrigós
  • Manuel Wimmer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8541)

Abstract

Immersed in social and mobile Web, users are expecting personalized browsing experiences, based on their needs, goals, and preferences. This may be complex since the users’ Web navigations usually imply several (related) Web applications. A very popular technique to tackle this challenge is Web augmentation. Previously, we presented an approach to orchestrate user tasks over multiple websites, creating so-called procedures. However, these procedures are not easily editable, and thus not reusable and maintainable. In this paper, we present a complementary model-based approach, which allows treating procedures as (de)composable activities for improving their maintainability and reusability. For this purpose we introduce a dedicated UML profile for Activity Diagrams (ADs) and translators from procedures to ADs as well as back-translators to execute new compositions of these procedures. By combining benefits of end-user development for creation and model-driven engineering for maintenance, our approach proposes to have the best of both worlds as is demonstrated by a case study for trip planning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bogart, C., Burnett, M., Cypher, A., Scaffidi, C.: End-user programming in the wild: a field study of CoScripter scripts. In: VL/HCC, pp. 39–46 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolin, M., Webber, M., Rha, P., Wilson, T.: C. Miller R.: Automation and customization of rendered web pages. In: UIST, pp. 163–172 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Díaz, O.: Understanding Web augmentation. In: Grossniklaus, M., Wimmer, M. (eds.) ICWE Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7703, pp. 79–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diaz, O., De Sosa, J., Trujillo, S.: Activity fragmentation in the Web: empowering users to support their own webflows. In: Hypertext, pp. 69–78 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Díaz, O., Arellano, C., Iturrioz, J.: Interfaces for Scripting: Making Greasemonkey Scripts Resilient to Website Upgrades. In: Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Kappel, G., Rossi, G. (eds.) ICWE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6189, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Firmenich, S., Rossi, G., Winckler, M.: A Domain Specific Language for Orchestrating User Tasks Whilst Navigation Web Sites. In: Daniel, F., Dolog, P., Li, Q. (eds.) ICWE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7977, pp. 224–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Firmenich, S., Winckler, M., Rossi, G., Gordillo, S.: A crowdsourced approach for concern-sensitive integration of information across the web. JWE 10(4), 289–315 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garrigós, I., Wimmer, M., Mazón, J.-N.: Weaving Aspect-Orientation into Web Modeling Languages. In: Sheng, Q.Z., Kjeldskov, J. (eds.) ICWE Workshops 2013. LNCS, vol. 8295, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaubatz, P., Zdun, U.: UML2 Profile and Model-Driven Approach for Supporting System Integration and Adaptation of Web Data Mashups. In: Grossniklaus, M., Wimmer, M. (eds.) ICWE Workshops 2012. LNCS, vol. 7703, pp. 81–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gómez, J., Cachero, C., Pastor, O.: Extending a Conceptual Modelling Approach to Web Application Design. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 79–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jouault, F., Allilaire, F., Bézivin, J., Kurtev, I.: ATL: A model transformation tool. Sci. Comput. Program. 72(1-2), 31–39 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch, N., Kraus, A., Zhang, G., Baumeister, H.: UML-Based Web Engineering - An Approach Based on Standards. In: Web Engineering, pp. 157–191 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, J., Gupta, A., Arvid, J., Borretzen, B., Conradi, R.: The empirical studies on quality benefits of reusing software components. In: COMPSAC, pp. 399–402 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Winckler, M.: Structuring and composition mechanisms to address scalability issues in task models. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part III. LNCS, vol. 6948, pp. 589–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language (UML), Superstructure, Version 2.4.1 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.4.1
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group. Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (fUML), Version 1.0 (2011), http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/1.0
  17. 17.
    Rossi, G., Schwabe, D., Lyardet, F.: Abstraction and Reuse Mechanisms in Web Application Models. In: Mayr, H.C., Liddle, S.W., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER Workshops 2000. LNCS, vol. 1921, p. 76. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Selic, B.: A Systematic Approach to Domain-Specific Language Design Using UML. In: ISORC, pp. 2–9 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Deursen, A., Visser, E., Warmer, J.: Model-driven software evolution: A research agenda. In: Workshop on Model-Driven Software Evolution (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wimmer, M.: A semi-automatic approach for bridging DSMLs with UML. IJWIS 5(3), 372–404 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu, J., Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Florian, D.: Understanding mashup development. IEEE Internet Computing 12(5), 44–52 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Firmenich
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irene Garrigós
    • 3
  • Manuel Wimmer
    • 4
  1. 1.LIFIAUniversidad Nacional de La PlataArgentina
  2. 2.CONICETArgentina
  3. 3.WaKe ResearchUniversity of AlicanteSpain
  4. 4.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations