Conceptual Modelling of Application Stories

Chapter

Abstract

The development of complex systems requires an understanding of how the system is supposed to be used. This corresponds to describing how actors are supposed to navigate through the system and which actions they are to execute in order to perform certain tasks. As descriptions of navigation paths correspond to “telling stories” about the system usage, a conceptual model for application stories is needed. This chapter highlights the key concepts of storyboarding such as actors, scenarios and tasks, and the composed action scheme called “plot”. Furthermore, the pragmatics of storyboards is addressed, i.e. what the model means to users. The chapter is rounded out by discussing inferences to analyse storyboards.

References

  1. 1.
    Akaishi M, Spyratos N, Tanaka Y (2002) A component-based application framework for context-driven information access. In: Kangassalo H et al (eds) Information modelling and knowledge bases XIII. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 254–265Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atzeni P, Gupta A, Sarawagi S (1998) Design and maintenance of data-intensive web sites. In: Proceedings of EDBT’98. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1377. Springer, Berlin, pp 436–450Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen J, Wieringa R, Meyer JJC (2002) A fixed-point characterization of a deontic logic of regular action. Fundam Inform 49(4):107–128MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ceri S, Fraternali P, Bongio A, Brambilla M, Comai S, Matera M (2003) Designing data-intensive Web applications. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conallen J (2003) Building Web applications with UML. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Troyer O, Leune C (1998) WSDM: a user-centered design method for web sites. In: Proceedings of the 7th international WWW conference on computer networks and ISDN systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dershowitz N (1987) Termination of rewriting. J Symbol Comput 3(1/2):69–116MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum F, Meyer JJC, Wieringa R, Kuiper R (1996) A modal approach to intentions, commitments and obligations: intention plus commitment yields obligation. In: Brown MA, Carmo J (eds) DEON 1996, workshops in computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 80–97Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter T, Subrahmanian VS (1999) Deontic action programs. In: Polle T, Ripke T, Schewe KD (eds) Fundamentals of information systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 37–54Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feyer T, Schewe KD, Thalheim B (1998) Conceptual modelling and development of information services. In: Ling T, Ram S (eds) Conceptual modeling – ER’98. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1507. Springer, Berlin, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garzotto F, Paolini P, Schwabe D (1993) HDM – a model-based approach to hypertext application design. ACM Trans Inf Syst 11(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heckmann D, Schwartz T, Brandherm B, Schmitz M, von Wilamowitz–Möllendorff M (2005) Gumo – the general user model ontology. In: User modeling. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3538. Springer, Berlin, pp 428–432Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Houben GJ, Barna P, Frasincar F, Vdovjak R (2003) HERA: development of semantic web information systems. In: 3rd international conference on Web engineering – ICWE 2003. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2722. Springer, Berlin, pp 529–538Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knuth DE, Bendix PB (1970) Simple word problems in universal algebras. In: Computational problems in abstract algebra. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 263–297Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobsa A (2005) User modeling and user-adapted interaction. User Model User-Adapt Interact 15(1–2):185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kozen D (1997) Kleene algebra with tests. ACM Trans Programm Lang Syst 19(3):427–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kozen D (2002) On the complexity of reasoning in Kleene algebra. Inf Comput 179(2):152–162MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kozen D, Smith F (1996) Kleene algebra with tests: completeness and decidability. In: van Dalen D, Bezem M (eds) Computer science logic. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1258. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lowe D, Henderson-Sellers B, Gu A (2002) Web extensions to UML: using the MVC triad. In: Spaccapietra S, March ST, Kambayashi Y (eds) Conceptual modeling – ER 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2503. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Magnini B, Strapparava C (2004) User modelling for news web sites with word sense based techniques. User Model User-Adapt Interact 14(2–3):239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moritz T, Schewe KD, Thalheim B (2005) Strategic modelling of web information systems. Int J Web Inf Syst 1(4):77–94Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mylopoulos J, Motschnig-Pitrik R (1995) Partioning information bases with contexts. In: Proceedings of CoopIS ’95. Springer, Berlin, pp 44–55Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mylopoulos J, Fuxman A, Giorgini P (2000) From entities and relationships to social actors and dependencies. In: Conceptual modeling – ER 2000. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Razmerita L, Angehrn AA, Maedche A (2003) Ontology-based user modeling for knowledge management systems. In: Brusilowsky P, Corbett AT, de Rosis F (eds) User modeling, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2702. Springer, Berlin. , Heidelberg, pp 213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schewe KD, Thalheim B (2005) The co-design approach to web information systems development. Int J Web Inf Syst 1(1):5–14Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schewe KD, Thalheim B (2005) Conceptual modelling of web information systems. Data Knowl Eng 54(2):147–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schewe KD, Thalheim B (2007) Personalisation of web information systems – a term rewriting approach. Data Knowl Eng 62(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schewe KD, Thalheim B (2007) Pragmatics of storyboarding for web information systems: Usage analysis. Int J Web Grid Serv 3(2):128–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schewe KD, Thalheim B, Wang Q (2009) Customising web information systems according to user preferences. World Wide Web 12(1):27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwabe D, Rossi G (1998) An object oriented approach to web-based application design. Theory Pract Object Syst 4(4):207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thalheim B, Düsterhöft A (2000) The use of metaphorical structures for internet sites. Data Knowl Eng 35:161–180MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thalheim B, Düsterhöft A (2001) SiteLang: conceptual modeling of internet sites. In: Kunii HS, Jajodia S, Sølvberg A (eds) Conceptual modeling – ER 2001. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2224. Springer, Berlin, pp 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Theodorakis M, Analyti A, Constantopoulos P, Spyratos N (2002) A theory of contexts in information bases. Inf Syst 27(3):151–191MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wieringa R, Meyer JJC (1993) Actors, actions, and initiative in normative system specification. Ann Math Artif Intell 7(1–4):289–346MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceHochschule WismarWismarGermany
  2. 2.Software Competence Center HagenbergHagenbergAustria

Personalised recommendations