Online Writing Data Representation: A Graph Theory Approach

  • Gilles Caporossi
  • Christophe Leblay
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7014)


There are currently several systems to collect online writing data in keystroke logging. Each of these systems provides reliable and very precise data. Unfortunately, due to the large amount of data recorded, it is almost impossible to analyze except for very limited recordings. In this paper, we propose a representation technique based upon graph theory that provides a new viewpoint to understand the writing process. The current application is aimed at representing the data provided by ScriptLog although the concepts can be applied in other contexts.


Representation Technique Writing Process Extremal Graph Geographic Information System Technique Writing Activity 
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.
    Alamargot, D., Chanquoy, L.: Through the Models of Writing. Studies in Writing. Kluwer Academic Pubishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahlsén, E., Strömqvist, S.: ScriptLog: A tool for logging the writing process and its possible diagnostic use. In: Loncke, F., Clibbens, J., Arvidson, H., Lloyd, L. (eds.) Argumentative and Alternative Communication: New Directions in Research and Practice, pp. 144–149. Whurr Publishers, London (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caporossi, G., Cvetković, D., Gutman, I., Hansen, P.: Variable Neighborhood Search for Extremal Graphs. 2. Finding Graphs with Extremal Energy. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 984–996 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caporossi, G., Gutman, I., Hansen, P.: Variable Neighborhood Search for Extremal Graphs. 4. Chemical Trees with Extremal Connectivity Index. Computers and Chemistry 23, 469–477 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chenouf, Y., Foucambert, J., Violet, M.: Genèse du texte.Technical report 30802 - Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesnet, D., Alamargot, D.: Analyse en temps réel des activités oculaires et grapho-motrices du scripteur: intérêts du dispositif Eye and Pen. L’année Psychologique 32, 477–520 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faigley, L., Witte, S.: Analysing revision. College composition and communication 32, 400–414 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jakobsen, A.L.: Logging target text production with Translog. In: Hansen, G. (ed.) Probing the Process in Translation. Methods and Results, Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp. 9–20 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jakobsen, A.L.: Research Methods in Translation: Translog. In: Sullivan, K.P.H., Lindgren, E. (eds.) Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, pp. 95–105. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leblay, C.: Les invariants processuels. En deçà du bien et du mal écrire. Pratiques 143/144, 153–167 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leijten, M., Van Waes, L.: Writing with speech recognition: the adaptation process of professional writers. Interacting with Computers 17, 736–772 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindgren, E., Sullivan, K.P.H., Lindgren, U., Spelman Miller, K.: GIS for writing: applying geographic information system techniques to data-mine writing’s cognitive processes. In: Ri- Jlaarsdam, G. (series ed.), Torrance, M., Van Waes, L., Galbraith, D. (vol. eds.) Writing and Cognition: Research and Applications, pp. 83–96. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matsuhashi, A.: Revising the plan and altering the text. In: Matsuhashi, A. (ed.) Writing in Real Time, pp. 197–223. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Novak, J.D.: Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science 19, 29–52 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strömqvist, S., Karlsson, H.: ScriptLog for Windows - User’s manual. Technical report - University of Lund: Department of Linguistic and University College of Stavanger: Centre for Reading Research (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sullivan, K.P.H., Lindgren, E. (eds.): Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Waes, L., Schellens, P.J.: Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of Pragmatics 35(6), 829–853 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Waes, L., Leijten, M.: Inputlog: New Perspectives on the Logging of On-Line Writing Processes in a Windows Environment. In: Sullivan, K.P.H., Lindgren, E. (eds.) Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, pp. 73–93. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wengelin, Ä.: Examining pauses in writing: Theories, methods and empirical data. In: Sullivan, K.P.H., Lindgren, E. (eds.) Computer Key-Stroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, pp. 107–130. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Caporossi
    • 1
  • Christophe Leblay
    • 2
  1. 1.GERAD and HEC MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.ITEM, Paris, France and SOLKIJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations