- From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:29:54 +0530
- To: Roberto García González <roberto.garcia@udl.cat>
- Cc: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, "public-swisig@w3.org" <public-swisig@w3.org>
Roberto, thanks for the pointer I had seen this work I think when you presented it somewhere some time ago ( not senile, just information overload and time bends in a strange way on the internet and squashes my cognition). I ll revise in more detail and follow up accordingly. Would be good to get other people to use it and give feedback. Do you have anyone who has used this method (other than the authors of the method itself), if not, maybe we could bribe someone to use it (in previous studies, I paid students to carry out data collection or method evaluation tasks) Daniel ---------- It occurred to me that your post may suggest implicitly that we add another goal to the charter, and that is to come with a definition of SWI, or maybe a set of definitions pertaining to the SWI domain. If this is the case, please add the suggestion to the second stakeholder questionnaire. Either way, I ll capture your propose definitions and stick them in the wiki as 'proposed defintions' somewhere unless someone wants to disagree/argue with them, We would then use them as pointers toward scoping the direction of our work, since three definitions could help us slice up the domain and work to be done accordingly cheers PDM Thanks PDM On 12/10/14, Roberto García González <roberto.garcia@udl.cat> wrote: > Dear all, > > It might be useful for the evaluation of interactive systems based on > semantic web technologies to use an Quality in Use framework, for instance > the one for Semantic Web Exploration Tools SWET-QUM: > http://rhizomik.net/html/swet-qum/ > > I hope its helpful. > > Best, > > > Roberto > > <http://rhizomik.net/~roberto> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Daniel. >> >> thanks for prompt response, and good to hear from you >> >> The points you outline have not yet been discussed here, and the >> questions >> you pose are essential, and can be answered in a number of ways >> >> It would be good to have some agreement on the issue you reaise, to help >> us proceed/ >> >> I hope members of the group will help answer your qs, and if useful, we >> could >> articulate another questionnaire to make firm some replies - unless >> someone can offer an alternative method of surveying the community >> >> Below some of my answers, in italics >>> >> >> >>> 1) Is there a more precise definition of what “Semantic Web Interfaces” >>> mean? >>> I can interpret this as >>> a. Interfaces to Semantic Web data. Would this be only for RDF? Is there >>> any difference in these interfaces compared to any other interface? >>> b. Interfaces for Semantic Web-based applications, which then begs the >>> question, are these applications any different from other types of >>> applications, especially regarding their Interface requirements? >>> c. Interfaces that use Semantic Web models in their architecture, and >>> therefore exhibit some kind of different characteristics than >>> non-Semantic >>> Web-based ones? In this case, are they different than any other >>> model-based >>> Interfaces (e.g, Chameleon based ones)? >>> >> >> *- I would say that all three apply, and we need to decide what scope to >> cover in our work. I answered the question how are semantic interfaces >> different from other interfaces in a paper in 2008 at SWAHA/ASWC * >> >> >> *http://www.academia.edu/687932/Toward_Global_User_Models_for_Semantic_Technologies_Emergent_Perspectives >> <http://www.academia.edu/687932/Toward_Global_User_Models_for_Semantic_Technologies_Emergent_Perspectives>* >> >> *that is, semantic technologies offer a new set of semantci capabilities, >> which pose interaction and usability challenges accordingly. * >> >> *if you disagree, please let's discuss!* >> >>> >>> 2) Any evaluation would have to be clear on what exactly is being >>> evaluated re. 1). Has this been defined? >>> >> *personally, in my work, I define the scope based on customer >> requirement/input (first define who is the user) * >> >> *not yet discussed here. how do you think we should go about defining >> something Daniel* >> >> >> >>> Again, pls excuse me if I’m being redundant with previous discussions! >>> >> >> *not at all. gotta start somewhere.* >> >> >> >> 4, 2014, at 10:56 - 04/12/14, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Starting to get the ball rolling on the evaluation service, >>> >>> have just emailed everyone who responded positively to the first >>> questionnaire asking for expressions of interest in participating in >>> offering a SWI evaluation service >>> >>> If however you did not respond at the time, and are interested to >>> collaborate, reply me offlist and I ll put you in the loop >>> >>> Before dishing out my own (our own, if we collaborate) looking to >>> summarize existing approaches/methodologies for semantic web interfaces >>> evaluation, but havent found anything definitive >>> >>> Have I missed something? >>> >>> Unless something has been published already and I havent found it yet, I >>> ll start working on something and circulate the draft for feedback, maybe >>> a >>> collective paper? >>> More generally, please let us know if you are aware of (general) >>> interface evaluation methods and approaches not listed in this paper >>> (most recent lit rev I could find), or anything else relevant that we >>> should include in our state of the art survey- >>> http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST12-04-02-143.pdf >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> PDM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 14:00:28 UTC