Advertisement

A Pragmatic Approach to Collaborative Semantic Modelling

The Visual Modelling (Language) Editor
  • Christoph Richter
  • Heidrun Allert
  • Vassiliy P. Tchoumatchenko
  • Ivan H. Furnadziev
  • Tania K. Vasileva
  • Dimitris Kotzinos
  • Giorgos Flouris
  • Vassilis Christophides
  • Juha Löytöläinen
Part of the Technology Enhanced Learning book series (TEL, volume 7)

Abstract

Conceptual modelling has attracted a lot of research interest in recent years and various tools, such as Cmap1, Compendium2, FreeStyler3, and Belvedere4 have been developed to support the collaborative creation and work with various kinds of visual models. This interest is hardly surprising, given the prominent role of conceptual modelling across a large variety of professional and educational domains. As physical or digital artefacts, conceptual models provide important means for the explication, communication, and scrutinizing of each other’s ideas and concepts. In order to guide the modelling process and to support mutual understanding among participants, semi-formal notations or modelling languages are used regularly both in professional, training as well as educational settings.

Keywords

Modelling Language Knowledge Creation Visual Modelling Collaborative Modelling Computer Support Collaborative Learn 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allert, H., Markkanen, H. & Richter, C. (2006). Rethinking the Use of Ontologies in Learning. 2nd Workshop on Learner-Oriented Knowledge Management & KM-Oriented E-Learning (LOKMOL 2006), Crete, Greece, October 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Beguin P. Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interacting with Computers. 2003;15:709–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, S., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2007). ‘Ontology Maturing - A collaborative Web 2.0 Approach to Ontology Engineering’, Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge at WWW, 2007. Proceedings of the Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge (CKC 2007) at the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2007) Banff, Canada, May 8, 2007, CEUR Workshop Proceedings vol. 273.Google Scholar
  4. Domingue, J. (1998). Tadzebao and WebOnto: Discussing, Browsing, and Editing Ontologies on the Web. 11th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Banff, Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Frigg, R. & Hartmann, S. (2006). Models in Science. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science.
  6. Froehner, T., Nickles, M. & Weiss, G. (2004). Towards modeling the social layer of emergent knowledge using open ontologies. Proceedings of The ECAI 2004 Workshop on Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management (AMKM), 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Gabel T, Sure Y, Voelker J. KAON-Ontology Management Infrastructure. SEKT informal deliverable. 2004;3(1).Google Scholar
  8. Gangemi, A., Presutti V., Catenacci, C., Lehmann, J. & Nissim, M. (2007). CODO: an OWL metamodel for collaborative ontology design. WWW2007, May 8-12, 2007, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Guangzuo C. (2004). OntoEdu: Ontology based Education Grid System for e-learning. GCCCE2004, HongKong, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. Hepp M. Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constrains the Development of Relevant Ontologies. IEEE Internet Computing. 2007;11(1):90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoppe HU, Gaßner K, Mühlenbrock M, Tewissen F. Distributed Visual Language Environments for Cooperation and Learning: Applications and Intelligent Support. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2000;9:205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models as Epistemic Artefacts: Toward a Non-Represenationalist Account of Scientific Representation. PhD Thesis. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  13. Knuuttila T, Voutilainen A. A Parser as an Epistemic Artefact: A Material View on Models. Philosophy of Science. 2003;70(5):1484–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kotzinos D, Flouris G, Tzitzikas Y, Andreou D, Christophides V. Supporting Evolution of Knowledge Artefacts in Web Based Learning Environments. In: Karacapilidis N, editor. Solutions and Innovations in Web-Based Technologies for Augmented Learning: Improved Platforms, Tools and Applications (chapter IX). London: IGI Global; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Kozaki K., Sunagawa E., Kitamura Y. & Mizoguchi R. (2007). A Framework for Cooperative Ontology Construction Based on Dependency Management of Modules. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Emergent Semantics and Ontology Evolution, 12 Nov. 2007, Bexco, Busan Korea.Google Scholar
  16. Markkanen, H., Holi, M., Benmergui, L., Bauters, M. & Richter, C. (2008). The knowledge Practices Environment: A virtual environment for collaborative knowledge creation and work around shared artefacts. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008, AACE: Chesapeake, pp. 5035-5040.Google Scholar
  17. McCool R. Rethinking the Semantic Web, Part I. IEEE Internet Computing. 2005;9(6):86–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morita T, Izumi N, Fukuta N, Yamaguchi T. A Graphical RDF-Based Meta-Model Management Tool. IEICE TRANS. INF. & SYST.. 2006;89(4):1368–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morrison, M. & Morgan, M. (19999: Models as Mediating Instruments. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison, (Eds.). Models as Mediators (pp. 10-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Paavola S, Hakkarainen K. The Knowledge Creation Metaphor - An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science Education. 2005;14(6):535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers, P.J. (2000). Program Theory: Not Whether Programs Work But How They Work. In: D.L. Stufflebeam, G.F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.). Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 209-232). 2nd ed.- Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Schoop M, de Moor A, Dietz JLG. The Pragmatic Web: A Manifesto. Communications of the ACM. 2006;49(5):75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sereno, B., Buckingham Shum, S., & Motta, E. (2007). Formalization, User Strategy and Interaction Design: Users' Behaviour with Discourse Tagging Semantics. Proceedings of the Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge (CKC 2007) at WWW2007, Banff, Canada, May 8, 2007, CEUR Workshop Proceedings vol. 273.Google Scholar
  24. Suthers, D.D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S. & Dwyer, N. (2007). Conceptual Representations Enhance Knowledge Construction in Asynchronous Collaboration. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2007, (pp. 704-713), New Brunswick, NJ, USA, July 16 - July 21, 2006, pp. 704-713.Google Scholar
  25. Suthers, D.D. (2001). Collaborative Representations: Supporting Face to Face and Online Knowledge Building Discourse. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences. Maui, 2001: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  26. Van Kleek, M., Bernstein, M., André, P., Perttunen, M., Karger, D. & Schraefel, M. (2008). Simplifying knowledge creation and access for end-users on the SW. Proceedings of CHI 2008 Workshop on Semantic Web User Interfaces, Florence, Italy, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Richter
    • 1
  • Heidrun Allert
    • 2
  • Vassiliy P. Tchoumatchenko
    • 3
  • Ivan H. Furnadziev
    • 4
  • Tania K. Vasileva
    • 5
  • Dimitris Kotzinos
    • 6
  • Giorgos Flouris
    • 7
  • Vassilis Christophides
    • 8
  • Juha Löytöläinen
    • 9
  1. 1.Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Technical University of SofiaBulgaria
  4. 4.Technical University of SofiaSofiaBulgaria
  5. 5.Technical University of SofiaSofiaBulgaria
  6. 6.Technical University of SofiaSofiaBulgaria
  7. 7.FORTH-ICSHeraklioGreece
  8. 8.FORTH-ICSHeraklioGreece
  9. 9.Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied SciencesHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations