Interacting with Dynamic Social Knowledge - Revealing Challenges through an Analysis of Pragmatic Aspects of Problem Solving

Rodrigo Bonacin, Heiko Hornung, Julio Cesar Dos Reis, Roberto Pereira, M. Cecília C. Baranauskas


In the Social Web users interact with each other in multiple contexts expressing meanings and intentions. Knowledge production in this context can be understood as a dynamic socio-cultural process. Mechanisms that support users to explore this knowledge in an effective and efficient way may bring benefits from a personal and social perspective. However, the construction of these interaction mechanisms is dependent on new models and techniques to dynamically represent and visualize the shared knowledge. The interpretation of the content by users is influenced by meanings and intentions, as well as by the understanding of the evolution of these aspects over time. This paper analyses the evolution of meaning and intentions in collaborative problem solving scenarios using Social Network Systems. The analysis method has its roots in Semiotics and Speech Act Theory. Results indicate research challenges for new interaction possibilities by representing the evolution of the pragmatic aspects and their relations with the semantic ones. To address these open research problems we present a preliminary conceptual framework for multidisciplinary research in three interconnected perspectives: interactive, conceptual and technical.


  1. Austin, J. L., (1962). How to Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England.
  2. Avery, J., and Yearwood, J., (2003). Dowl: A dynamic ontology language. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2003, Algarve, Portugal.
  3. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., and Lassila, O., (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34-43.
  4. Burkhard, R., (2004). Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization. In Eight International Conference on Information Visualization (IV04), London, July
  5. Hornung, H. and Baranauskas, M. C. C., (2011) Towards a Conceptual Framework for Interaction Design for the Pragmatic Web. In 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2011. Heidelberg: Springer, 72-81.
  6. Cordeiro, J. and Filipe, J., (2003). Language Action Perspective, Organizational Semiotics and the Theory of Organized Activity - A Comparison. In Proceedings of the workshop DEMO. Tilburg, the Netherlands.
  7. de Moor, A. and van den Heuvel, W.-J., (2004). Web Service Selection in Virtual Communities. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society. 10p.
  8. Eppler, M., and Burkhard R., (2004). Knowledge Visualization. Towards a New Discipline and its Fields of Application. In Working Paper of Net Academy on Knowledge Media, St. Gallen.
  9. Flouris, G., Manakanatas, D., Kondylakis, H., Plexousakis, D., and Antoniou, G., (2007). Ontology change: Classification and survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23(2), 117-152.
  10. Gibson, J. J., (1968) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Miffin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
  11. Goldkuhl, G., and Lyytinen, K., (1982). A Language Action View of Information Systems, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 13-29.
  12. Gruber, T., 2008. Collective knowledge systems: Where the Social Web meets the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6(1), pp.4-13.
  13. Hendler, J. and Berners-Lee, T., (2010). From the Semantic Web to Social Machines: A research challenge for AI on the World Wide Web. Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier. 174, 156-161
  14. Hoetzlein, R., (2007). The Organization of Human Knowedge: Systems for Interdisciplinary Research. Master's Thesis, University of California Santa Barbara, USA.
  15. Keller, T. and Tergan, S., (2005). Visualizing Knowledge and Information: An Introduction. In S.-O. Tergan and T. Keller (Eds.): Knowledge and Information Visualization, LNCS 3426, pp. 1 - 23.
  16. Klein, M., and Fensel, D., (2001). Ontology versioning for the semantic web. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS), Stanford University, California, USA.
  17. Kuß A., Prohaska S., and Rybak J., (2009). Using ontologies for the visualization of hierarchical neuroanatomical structures. In 2nd INCF Congress of Neuroinformatics.
  18. Leenheer, P. and Meersman, R., (2007). Towards Community-Based Evolution of Knowledge-Intensive Systems. In R. Meersman and Z. Tari et al. (Eds.): OTM2007, Part I, LNCS 4803, 989-1006.
  19. Liu, K., (2000). Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  20. Liu, K., (2009). Pragmatic Computing - A Semiotic Perspective to Web Services. In Filipe, J. and Obaidat, M. S., editors, E-Business and Telecommunications. ICETE 2007, Revised Selected Papers, Communications in Computer and Information Science, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 23,3-15.
  21. Maseri, W., Mohamad, W., Embong, A., and Mohd Zain, J., (2007). Improve Knowledge Visualization through an Interactive Graph-based Dashboard System with Key Performance Indicator: A Case Study of University Dashboard for Higher Education. In National Conference on Software Engineering and Computer Systems 2007 (NaCES 2007), Legend Resort Kuantan.
  22. Morris ,C. W., (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, (vol. 1 pp. 2). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  23. Pampalk, E., Goebl, W., and Widmer, G. (2003). Visualizing Changes in the Structure of Data for Exploratory Feature Selection. In SIGKDD 7803, Washington, DC, USA.
  24. Paschke, A., Boley, H., Kozlenkov, A., and Craig, B. (2007). Rule Responder: RuleML-Based Agents for Distributed Collaboration on the Pragmatic Web. In ICPW 7807: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Pragmatic Web, 17-28, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  25. Schoop, M., de Moor, A., and Dietz, J. L. G., (2006). The Pragmatic Web: A Manifesto. Communications of the ACM, 49(5):75-76.
  26. Searle, J. R., (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts, In Language in Society, 5 (1), 1-23
  27. Singh, M. P. (2002). The Pragmatic Web. IEEE Internet Computing, 6(3):4-5.
  28. Stamper, R., (1996), Signs, Information and Systems, in B. Holmqnist, et. Al. (Eds) Signs of Work Semiotics Information Processing in Organisations, Walter de Gruyter, N. Y.
  29. Stojanovic, L., (2004). Methods and tools for ontology evolution. PhD. Thesis. University of Karlsruhe, Universitat Karlsruhe (TH), Institut AIFB, D-76128 Karlsruhe.
  30. Winograd, T. and Flores, F., (1987). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Bonacin R., Hornung H., Dos Reis J., Pereira R. and Cecília C. Baranauskas M. (2012). Interacting with Dynamic Social Knowledge - Revealing Challenges through an Analysis of Pragmatic Aspects of Problem Solving . In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-12-9, pages 54-63. DOI: 10.5220/0004004800540063

in Bibtex Style

author={Rodrigo Bonacin and Heiko Hornung and Julio Cesar Dos Reis and Roberto Pereira and M. Cecília C. Baranauskas},
title={Interacting with Dynamic Social Knowledge - Revealing Challenges through an Analysis of Pragmatic Aspects of Problem Solving},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 3: ICEIS,
TI - Interacting with Dynamic Social Knowledge - Revealing Challenges through an Analysis of Pragmatic Aspects of Problem Solving
SN - 978-989-8565-12-9
AU - Bonacin R.
AU - Hornung H.
AU - Dos Reis J.
AU - Pereira R.
AU - Cecília C. Baranauskas M.
PY - 2012
SP - 54
EP - 63
DO - 10.5220/0004004800540063