A Platform for Object-Action Semantic Web Interaction

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.

[1]  John Domingue,et al.  User Interaction and Uptake Challenges to Successfully Deploying Semantic Web Technologies , 2006 .

[2]  Sam Ruby,et al.  RESTful Web Services , 2007 .

[3]  Frank Leymann,et al.  Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More , 2005 .

[4]  Alan Dix.  The human interface , 1994 .

[5]  Yiannis Kompatsiaris,et al.  Semantic Multimedia and Ontologies: Theory and Applications , 2008 .

[6]  Chrisa Tsinaraki,et al.  Multimedia Content Description Using Semantic Web Languages , 2008 .

[7]  Dean Allemang,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, SEMWEB.

[8]  Rosa Gil,et al.  Improving Human-Semantic Web Interaction: The Rhizomer Experience , 2006, SWAP.

[9]  Francesco Piazza,et al.  Signing individual fragments of an RDF graph , 2005, WWW '05.

[10]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  Web Service Modeling Ontology , 2005, Appl. Ontology.

[11]  Wendy Hall,et al.  The Semantic Web Revisited , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[12]  José A. Macías,et al.  Ontology-Based Retrieval of Human Speech , 2007, 18th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2007).

[13]  S. Engel.  Thought and Language , 1964 .

[14]  Lora Aroyo,et al.  The Semantic Web: Research and Applications , 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[15]  Lynda Hardman,et al.  /facet: A Browser for Heterogeneous Semantic Web Repositories , 2006, SEMWEB.

[16]  이창민.  Human Interface , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[17]  Jesús Contreras,et al.  Neptuno: Semantic Web Technologies for a Digital Newspaper Archive , 2004, ESWS.

[18]  David McNeill,et al.  Action, thought and language , 1981, Cognition.

[19]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services , 2001, SWWS.