A Platform for Object-Action Semantic Web Interaction

  • Roberto García
  • Juan Manuel Gimeno
  • Ferran Perdrix
  • Rosa Gil
  • Marta Oliva
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5268)


Semantic Web applications tests show that their usability is seriously compromised. This motivates the exploration of alternative interaction paradigms, different from the "traditional" Web or desktop applications ones. The Rhizomer platform is based on the object-action interaction paradigm, which is better suited for heterogeneous resource spaces such as those common in the Semantic Web. Resources, described by means of RDF metadata, correspond to the objects from the interaction point of view and Rhizomer provides browsing mechanisms for them. Semantic web services, dynamically associated to these objects, correspond to the actions. Rhizomer has been applied in the context of a media house to build an audiovisual content management system. End-users of this system, journalists and archivists, are able to navigate the content repository through semantic metadata describing content pieces and the domain knowledge these pieces are referring to. Those resources constitute the objects to which, when the user selects one of them, semantic web services dynamically associate specialized visualization and interaction views, the actions.


Semantic Annotation SPARQL Query Media House SPARQL Endpoint Audiovisual Content 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Berners-Lee, T.: The Semantic Web revisited. Intelligent Systems 21(3), 96–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heath, T., Domingue, J., Shabajee, P.: User interaction and uptake challenges to successfully deploying Semantic Web technologies. In: Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web User Interaction Workshop, Athens, Georgia, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruner, J.: Action, Thought and Language. Alliance Psychology (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raskin, J.: The Human Interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    García, R., Gil, R.: Improving Human-Semantic Web Interaction: The Rhizomer Experience. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 201, pp. 57–64 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richardson, L., Ruby, S.: Restful Web Services. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berners-Lee, et al.: Exploring and Analyzing linked dates on the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of the 3rd International Semantic Web User Interaction Workshop (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildebrand, M., Ossenbruggen, J., Hardman, L.: /facet: A Browser for Heterogeneous Semantic Web Repositories. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 272–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tummarello, G., Morbidoni, C., Puliti, P., Piazza, F.: Signing individual fragments of an RDF graph. In: Proceedings of the WWW 2005 Conference, pp. 1020–1021 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, D. (ed.): OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Member Submission (2004),
  11. 11.
    Roman, D., Keller, Lausen, H., de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., et al.: Web Service Modeling Ontology. Applied Ontology 1(1), 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farrell, J., Lausen, H. (eds.): Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. W3C Working Draft (2007),
  13. 13.
    Weerawarana, S., Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Storey, T., Ferguson, D.F.: Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forrest, B.: Google Deprecates Their SOAP Search API. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2006), Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Castells, P., Perdrix, F., Pulido, E., Rico, M., Benjamins, R., Contreras, J., et al.: Neptuno: Semantic Web Technologies for a Digital Newspaper Archive. In: Bussler, C.J., Davies, J., Fensel, D., Studer, R. (eds.) ESWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3053, pp. 445–458. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tejedor, J., García, R., Fernández, M., López, F., Perdrix, F., Macías, J.A., Gil, R., Oliva, M., Moya, D., Colás, J., Castells, P.: Ontology-Based Retrieval of Human Speech. In: Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Web Semantics, WebS 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    García, R., Tsinaraki, C., Celma, O., Christodoulakis, S.: Multimedia Content Description using Semantic Web Languages. In: Kompatsiaris, Y., Hobson, P. (eds.) Semantic Multimedia and Ontologies: Theory and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (in press, 2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto García
    • 1
  • Juan Manuel Gimeno
    • 1
  • Ferran Perdrix
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rosa Gil
    • 1
  • Marta Oliva
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat of Lleida Jaume IILleidaSpain
  2. 2.Segre Media GroupLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations