Evaluating a Graph Query Language for Human-Robot Interaction Data in Smart Environments

  • Norman Köster
  • Sebastian Wrede
  • Philipp Cimiano
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10748)


Solutions for efficient querying of long-term human-robot interaction data require in-depth knowledge of the involved domains and represents a very difficult and error prone task due to the inherent (system) complexity. Developers require detailed knowledge with respect to the different underlying data schemata, semantic mappings, and, most importantly, the query language used by the storage system (e.g. SPARQL, SQL, or general-purpose language interfaces/APIs). While for instance database developers are familiar with technical aspects of query languages, application developers of interactive scenarios typically lack the specific knowledge to efficiently work with complex database management systems. Addressing this gap, in this paper we describe a model-driven software development based approach to create a long-term storage system to be employed in the domain of embodied interaction in smart environments (EISE). To support this, we created multiple domain specific languages using Jetbrains MPS to model the high level EISE domain, to represent the employed graph query language Cypher and to perform necessary model-to-model transformations. As main result, we present the EISE Query-Designer, a fully integrated workbench to facilitate data storage and retrieval by supporting and guiding developers in the query design process and allowing direct query execution without the need to have prior in-depth knowledge of the domain at hand. In this paper we report in detail on the study design, execution, first knowledge gained from our experiments, and lastly the lessons learned from the development process up to this point.



This research/work was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology ‘CITEC’ (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Adair, B., Miller, K., Ozanne, E., Hansen, R., Pearce, A.J., Santamaria, N., Viegas, L., Long, M., Said, C.M.: Smart-home technologies to assist older people to live well at home. J. Aging Sci. 1, 1–9 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cavallo, F., Aquilano, M., Bonaccorsi, M., Limosani, R., Manzi, A., Carrozza, M.C., Dario, P.: Improving domiciliary robotic services by integrating the ASTRO robot in an AmI infrastructure. In: Röhrbein, F., Veiga, G., Natale, C. (eds.) Gearing Up and Accelerating Cross-Fertilization between Academic and Industrial Robotics Research in Europe: STAR, vol. 94, pp. 267–282. Springer, Cham (2014). Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wrede, S., Leichsenring, C., Holthaus, P., Hermann, T., Wachsmuth, S.: The cognitive service robotics apartment: a versatile environment for human-machine interaction research. KI-Künstl. Intell. (Spec. Issue Smart Env.) 31, 299–304 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holthaus, P., Leichsenring, C., Bernotat, J., Richter, V., Pohling, M., Carlmeyer, B., Köster, N., Meyer zu Borgsen, S., Zorn, R., Schiffhauer, B., et al.: How to address smart homes with a social robot? A multi-modal corpus of user interactions with an intelligent environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voelter, M., Benz, S., Dietrich, C., Engelmann, B., Helander, M., Kats, L.C., Visser, E., Wachsmuth, G.: DSL engineering: designing, implementing and using domain-specific languages (2013).
  6. 6.
    Köster, N., Wrede, S., Cimiano, P.: An Ontology of Human Machine Interaction Data in Smart Environments. In: SAI Intelligent Systems Conference 2016. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Voelter, M., Pech, V.: Language modularity with the MPS language workbench. In: 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 1449–1450. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erdweg, S., van der Storm, T., Völter, M., Tratt, L., Boersma, M., Bosman, R., Cook, W.R., Gerritsen, A., Hulshout, A., Kelly, S., Loh, A., Konat, G., Molina, P.J., Palatnik, M., Pohjonen, R., Schindler, E., van der Woning, J.: Evaluating and comparing language workbenches. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct. 44(A:2447), 1–38 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neo Technology Inc.: openCypher. (2015)
  10. 10.
    Voelter, M., Kolb, B., Szabó, T., Ratiu, D., Deursen, A.V.: Lessons learned from developing mbeddr: a case study in language engineering with MPS. Softw. Syst. Model. 16, 1–46 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) USAB 2008. LNCS, vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brooke, J., et al.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sauro, J.: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices. Measuring Usability LLC, Denver (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodriguez, M.A.: The Gremlin graph traversal machine and language. In: Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Database Programming Languages, pp. 1–10 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prud, E., Seaborne, A., et al.: SPARQL query language for RDF (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    He, H., Singh, A.K.: Graphs-at-a-time: query language and access methods for graph databases categories and subject descriptors. In: SIGMOD, pp. 405–418 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tudorica, B.G., Bucur, C.: A comparison between several NoSQL databases with comments and notes. In: 2011 RoEduNet International Conference 10th Edition: Networking in Education and Research, pp. 1–5, June 2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hecht, R., Jablonski, S.: NoSQL evaluation: a use case oriented survey. In: Proceedings - 2011 International Conference on Cloud and Service Computing, CSC 2011, pp. 336–341, December 2011Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barišic, A., Amaral, V., Goulao, M., Barroca, B.: Recent advances in multi-paradigm modeling (MPM 2011). Electr. Commun. EASST 50, 220–224 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wegeler, T., Gutzeit, F., Destailleur, A., Dock, B.: Evaluating the benefits of using domain-specific modeling languages - an experience report categories and subject descriptors. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bariic, A., Amaral, V., Goulao, M.: Usability evaluation of domain-specific languages. In: 2012 Eighth International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 342–347 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barišić, A.: Iterative evaluation of domain-specific languages. CEUR Workshop Proc. 1115, 100–105 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kärnä, J., Tolvanen, J.P., Kelly, S.: Evaluating the use of domain-specific modeling in practice. In: Proceedings of the 9th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman Köster
    • 1
  • Sebastian Wrede
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philipp Cimiano
    • 1
  1. 1.Cluster of Excellence Center in Cognitive Interactive Technology (CITEC)Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Research Institute for Cognition and Robotics (CoR-Lab)Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations