W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-ui@w3.org > April 2006

Re: draft proposal for SWUI workshop at ISWC

From: Lloyd Rutledge <Lloyd.Rutledge@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:08:58 +0200
Message-ID: <44361E1A.9000609@cwi.nl>
To: public-semweb-ui@w3.org

Hi Duane,

Sorry I didn't have time to address all these issues in the workshop
proposal.  However, we can address them as a forum, both in general,
and with the goal of evolving the workshop plan (assuming acceptance)
as it approaches.  They can also go into the workshop page, which can
be more expansive than the proposal.

Duane Degler wrote:

 > Lloyd and monica,
 > I am belatedly getting to look more closely at the proposal. Initial
 > thoughts, with possibly more tomorrow. Thanks for driving this! Duane.
 > 1. Do you have a format in mind at this early stage? One of the 
things that
 > was considered important by reviewers in last year's submission was the
 > inclusion of the interactive discussion element. Is it worth 
elaborating on
 > how the workshop might go about its aims, at least in a general way?
 > 2. I'm not sure I'm clear on the phrase "We aim to map the "problem 
 > that binds these issues together." This is probably related to my first
 > point.

Last year's interactive element, with presentations only in the
morning, with an open afternoon session with discussion breakout
groups, worked well.  This year, of course, we have this mailing list,
which lets the community as a whole shape the discussion territory, giving
focussed discussions such as at the workshop more structure.

 > 3. There is an additional workshop reference you may want to cite:
 > User Aspects of the Semantic Web. Held in conjunction with the 2nd Annual
 > European Semantic Web Conference, Heraklion, Crete. May 29, 2005. Online:
 > http://kmi.open.ac.uk/events/usersweb/.

Thanks for the link.  I'll build a collection and post it.

 > I would also have included the one I did last year at UPA for the 
 > community, but I'm behind in posting the notes that came out of it... 

Please Let us know when it has a post-able URI.

 > 4. In advance of the workshop last year, we developed a general
 > categorization framework for what we were seeing in papers and prior
 > workshops. This might help provide some starting points for this year, as
 > well:

We also have results from the workshop that these advanced issues helped
form.  We have the resulting flipcharts and summary (thanks) at


Does the categorization framework below have a Web presence with a URI?

Thanks, Duane,

 > - General issues that impacts user acceptance of semantic behaviors - 
 > perceptions and social/cultural issues that affect user experience in
 > semantically-enabled applications (such as trust, collaboration,
 > transparency and authorization of agent action), requirements for future
 > applications, and/or considerations that need to be made when 
thinking about
 > user needs and design guidelines.
 > - Ontology models/frameworks - approaches for creating, managing, or
 > presenting ontologies, controlled vocabularies, and "folksonomies." 
This may
 > include models illustrating how concepts/contexts could be 
represented, the
 > implications of defining "meaning webs" and how they can be 
maintained so as
 > to remain relevant, and how they may be derived in an automated or
 > semi-automated way ("concept extraction") to support 
semantic-enablement of
 > static content repositories.
 > - Query or parsing models - how queries are constructed or user 
language is
 > interpreted and how it can/should be processed by the computer. The
 > relationship between unstructured free text search and 
search/navigation of
 > controlled vocabularies, as well as . The focus is on mapping between the
 > end user's perception of language and the end goal - information or task
 > completion - and the role that context can play to assist the user.
 > - Interaction models - specific methods by which users can interact 
with a
 > site or application in a novel way, or in a way that exploits the unique
 > benefits of the semantic web. The models aim to describe approaches to
 > interaction, rather than specific interaction implementations themselves.
 > The interaction might be small scale (e.g. particular screen messaging,
 > search support, handling drop-down lists or buttons, or presenting 
links for
 > navigation), or large (e.g. cascading menuing/window arrangement, 
 > environments, device-specific segmentation/display).
 > - Applications - sites or applications that is present a complete user
 > experience which is leveraged by the use of semantic information and
 > technologies. Where possible, these will be briefly illustrated or
 > demonstrated.
 > - Interaction components - particular components or sets of components
 > supporting user interaction or experience within a site (rather than an
 > entirely semantic application), for example a visualization 
widget/applet, a
 > control for filtering selections from within trees or navigation, 
 > elements that can be integrated with PDA or mobile phone applications, or
 > particular view formats that could be incorporated with other 
components in
 > an application.
 > - Enabling technologies - details of a technology, application or design
 > approach that provides infrastructure upon which semantic 
applications can
 > be created.
 > - Design/evaluation processes - processes to gather user requirements,
 > encourage user participation in design, evaluate usability with actual
 > users, and/or report on outcomes of user involvement. In particular these
 > need to highlight methods that respond to the particular needs of 
 > and design for semantic environments: high user context, dynamic data
 > integration and presentation, the use of ontologies and inferencing, etc.
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 08:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:51 UTC