A SEMIOTIC APPROACH OF CONTEXTS FOR PERVASIVE

SYSTEMS

Daniel Galarreta

Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, 18, av. E. Belin, 31401 Toulouse cedex 9, France

Keywords: Context, Pervasive Systems, Context-aware Computing, Multi-viewpoints Semiotics, Organizational

Semiotics.

Abstract: In this paper we examine the issue of contexts for pervasive systems and propose a semiotic definition of a

context. We adopt a knowledge oriented approach – viz. a multi-viewpoints semiotics. We examine the

relation between viewpoints and multimodality. The semiotic conceptual building we developed offers a

convenient approach in elucidating the question of context. We give examples presenting a semiotic and

multimodal context outside IT systems.

1 INTRODUCTION

«Man is the measure of all things ». This maxim of

Protagoras (about 450 BC) applied to the project of

information processing that has been thoroughly

integrated into everyday objects and activities, leads

us to wonder about the limits of the project. Indeed

this project puts in a frontal way the relation of a

universe attached to sciences of cultures

(anthropology, sociology) with the one which is

attached to "exact" sciences.

Organizational semiotics such as based on one

hand on R. Stamper’s works and continued by K.

Liu and on the other hand on B. Andersen’s works –

and other remarkable researchers’ works mainly

from the Netherlands and United Kingdom – took

well the measure of the existence of systems of

symbolic representations strictly belonging to the

domain of the human sciences for the elaboration of

information systems

(Gazendam, 2004)

But in its initial project – as in its practical

target - the OS conceive the information system as

an "onion": a computer system physically bounded

and plunged into an anthropic environment.

In the project of a pervasive computing one is

faced with the question of the "cohabitation" of

objects endowed with a logical rationality - without

affect and living outside the History - with human

beings endowed with rationality but also with

affects, living in the time, living in a language – a

culture –, permanently in search of an identity, and

ultimately destined to death.

If we consider some properties of pervasive systems,

we easily notice a possible hiatus. Indeed with such

systems the interaction with the environment is

supposed to be "natural": it is then inevitably

multimodal. It gets organized around the voice

recognition, the gestural recognition and the

manipulation of real objects.

Always with such systems the user has in

principle the possibility of interacting (actively or

passively), from anywhere with embedded software

around him. In each case the interpretation by the

computer system of the intention of the human

subject is highly problematic.

Without going as far as evoking the questions of

techniques of the body studied by the

anthropologists – such as Marcel Mauss –,

characterizing the human cultures, the way of

spontaneously manipulating objects, of using them

in coordination, can be strongly conditioned by the

context. The place, the moment, circumstance where

the interaction takes place strongly, determine the

meaning of this interaction. When this interaction

takes place without the human subject’s knowing,

the interpretation of the scene in which this

interaction occurs becomes risky. Therefore a

relevant dynamic adaptation of the system to this

context is very difficult to carry out. Even in this

case a pervasive computing is faced not with the

question of communicating in sense of Shannon by

exchange of symbols, but with the question of

Galarreta D.

A SEMIOTIC APPROACH OF CONTEXTS FOR PERVASIVE SYSTEMS.

DOI: 10.5220/0003267600370044

In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations (ICISO 2010), page

ISBN: 978-989-8425-26-3

participating to semiotic systems which have

potentially the same extension as the natural

languages and the cultures of the world.

In the conception of an information system in the

sense of the OS, the conditions of functioning of the

IT component were determined by relatively

restricted anthropic environments. The method

MEASUR proposed by R. Stamper for instance

permitted the designing of the articulation of the

various elements In the case of the pervasive

systems, multimodality and the situations of ubiquity

make the anthropic environments much more

difficult to model. One of the major difficulties is to

guarantee effective collaboration between a

pervasive system and a human e.g. determining the

various contexts in which the interactions take place.

In this communication we investigate a semiotic

modelling of these contexts. We suggest some

possible development. In section 2 we remind

definitions of context that were proposed in context-

aware computing. In section 3 we advocate a

semiotic definition of context. In section 4 we

propose such a semiotic definition within a

knowledge oriented approach of organizational

semiotics – viz. a multi-viewpoints semiotics. In

section 5, we examine the relation between

viewpoints and multimodality and in section 6 we

observe how a semiotic multimodal context may

already be implemented in our environment.

2 DEFINITIONS OF CONTEXT

Considering the context in designing information

systems is not a new issue. This is the case for

instance, when we take into account the environment

into which the information system is to be

integrated. This approach is typically adopted by

ergonomics. We can also note this concern in the

way where organizational semiotics extends the

information system to the whole organization by

articulating the organised behaviour and data

processing in a unified theory

(Stamper and Liu,

1994),

(Stamper, 2009).

If we extend our consideration to the whole

domain of the computing sciences, we can observe

that the context has been involved in to different

domains such as natural language processing,

machine learning, computer vision, decision support,

information retrieval, pervasive computing and more

recently computer security.

In their article Mostéfaoui et al. (Mostéfaoui

and al., 2004)

remind us that the term context-aware

computing was first introduced by Shilit and

Theimer

(Schilit and Theimer, 1994) where they

refer to context as: (D1) “the location of use, the

collection of nearby people and objects, as well as

the changes to those objects over time”.

A similar definition is given by Brown et al in

(Brown and al., 1997): (D2) “We define context to

be any information that can be used to characterize

the situation on an entity, where an entity can be a

person, place, or physical computational object”.

P. Brézillon and J.C. Pomerol (Brézillon and

Pomerol, 1999) define context as: (D3) “all the

knowledge that constrains a problem solving at a

given step without intervening in it explicitly”.

A.K. Dey (Dey, 2000) proposes a more generic

definition that states: (D4) “Context is any

information that can be used to characterize the

situation of an entity. An entity is a person or object

that is considered relevant to the interaction between

a user and an application, including the user and the

application themselves”. A. Dey observes that

location, identity, time, and activity are the primary

context types for characterizing the situation of a

particular entity. The primary pieces of context for

one entity can be used as indices to find secondary

context (e.g., the email address) for that same entity

as well as primary context for other related entities

(e.g., other people in the same location).

From a user’s point of view, Gwizdka (Gwizdka,

2000) makes a distinction between internal and

external contexts. Internal context describes the state

of the user and may include the work context (e.g.

current projects and their status, status of to-dos,

project team), personal events i.e. events

experienced by the user), communication context

(i.e. state of interpersonal email communication),

and emotional state of the user. External context

describes the state of the surrounding environment.

It may include location, proximity to other objects

(both people and devices), and temporal context.

Adopting the distinction of Gwizdka, we

simplify it in the following way. The internal

context can be understood as the knowledge that the

user has and that he is capable of mobilizing at the

given moment. The external context can denote all

the potentially significant elements which the

physical environment can provide to the user in

order to carry out his/her tasks - for example finding

the closest Italian restaurant opened.

What we observe then is that the interaction

between the user and its IT environment is

conditioned by both types of contexts at the same

time. The problem is then to grasp in a satisfactory

way the internal context in connection with the

external context: the aimed goal is to start the

treatments or the most adequate actions with respect

ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations

to the expectations of the user. According to us, the

previous definitions of contexts (D1 to D4), present

all the defect to implicitly admit the possibility of

describing objectively the context - internal and

external - of a user. They all underestimate not to

say ignore the epistemological issue that this

description poses. We propose below in this paper a

definition of context that rests upon the concept of

point of view which we shall examine later. This

definition presents the advantage, with regard to the

previous definitions, to explicitly put emphasize

upon the cognitive dimension of the context and

solve that epistemological issue.

3 IS THE NOTION OF CONTEXT

NECESSARY?

This distinction between “internal context” and

“external context” is here only temporary. If the

interactions of the subject with a distributed IT

environment depend at the same time on an internal

context and on an external context, therefore it is not

sure that a description of this external context is

"objective". Symmetrically it is not sure that the

internal context only owes its existence to internal

cognitive resources attached to the subject. On the

contrary the mutual dependence of both forms of

contexts militates rather for a unifying approach

which renders the coupling of the human subject and

its environment.

We do believe that such an approach should be a

semiotic one since the objects which the human

subject perceives or conceives, are first of all

significant objects that is elements susceptible to be

grasped or produced within the framework of a

semiotic system. This grasping (or this production)

takes place during a semiotic process.

We will soon describe such a semiotic system

that offers such a unifying approach. For the

moment let us note how textual semantics considers

context (Rastier, 1998). Such an approach shares

several intuitions with our own approach –

reminding here that a text is synonymous to a

semiotic production.

According to F. Rastier (Rastier, 1998) and to

our own semiotic project internal and external

contexts are both culturally situated. “The context

agrees with the critical thought. Indeed, the context

moves as the gaze moves, and thus the thought of

the context is a thought of points of view. Now, for

the critical thought the subject and the object do not

pre-exist, and occur mutually in their coupling”.

However supporter of the semiotics of Discourse

– such as J. Fontanille – question the belief that

context is necessary notion. This approach is

interesting with respect to our own project as far as

it proposes a unifying approach of all signifying

objects whichever their semiotic modes (verbal,

visual, etc). We will return later to that point (see

viewpoints and multimodality)

For instance J Fontanille notices (Fontanille,

1997) that it is the point of view of the text, in the

hermeneutic perspective which obliges to add,

contextual elements otherwise the interpretation

remains incomplete, and the understanding,

unsatisfactory. On the other hand discourse – as

opposed to text –does not require using context, not

that discourse includes context as an additional part,

but because the notion of context is not relevant

from this point of view. Indeed, the point of view of

the discourse neutralizes the difference between text

and context: to adopt the point of view of the

discourse, is to admit at once that all the elements

which contribute to the process of meaning belong

by right to the signifying set, that is discourse, and

whoever they are. In brief, it is the point of view of

the text that "invents" the notion of text. However

the other problems rise when one is to adopt the

point of view of the Discourse. Indeed one has to

deal with the conjugation within the same process of

several semiotic modes: verbal, visual, auditory,

even olfactory, proxemic modes, etc." It raises de

facto problems of inter-semiotic relations, in

particular in the construction of a syncretism

between various semiotic modes and the logics.

4 SEMIOTIC MODELING OF

CONTEXTS

In this section we propose one general semiotic

modelling of the contexts which allow tackling

internal and external contexts in the same way.

In order to do that we situate ourselves within

the framework of organizational semiotics and adopt

the approach which H. Gazendam defined as a

knowledge-oriented approach – as opposed to

system-oriented and, behaviour-oriented approaches

(Gazendam, 2004). This approach considers

knowledge as representations or sign structures in

the human mind, enabling adequate behaviour of the

human actor. “Within organizations, knowledge can

be created by processes of construction. Knowledge

about something that does not exist yet but has to be

constructed (for instance, a new aeroplane, or new

computer program) has to be attained by a process of

A SEMIOTIC APPROACH OF CONTEXTS FOR PERVASIVE SYSTEMS

discourse. In this process, actors take viewpoints

based on their specialist knowledge and

organizational role. Based on these viewpoints,

views are expressed. In a process of negotiation,

views are exchanged, compared, criticized, and

possibly changed, with the aim to reach a set of

compatible views that can be seen as

organizationally constructed knowledge”

(Gazendam, 2004).

For the sake of a general modelling of the

contexts we have in view, it is necessary to remind

briefly how this general approach, is implemented in

our own work (Galarreta, 2008).

4.1 Definition of a Viewpoint

In accordance with intuition, we define a viewpoint

as the way an individual or a group of people form

(grasp or produce) a signification. Accordingly, we

will define it as an individual or a collective

viewpoint.

We draw on the definition that L Hjelmslev

gives of signification within the framework of his

theory of the language. This precision gives us the

occasion to indicate that the references to the

Hjelmslev’s theory will be reduced to the minimum.

Let us try for instance to define intuitively what

Hjelmslev means by signification.

The expressions ‘dog’ in English, ‘Kringmerk’

in Eskimo, گس in Persian or क

ु

क

ु

र in Sanskrit have

all the four, the content dog. However even if each

of above expressions means dog in all the four

languages that we choose, they do not imply that a

native writing or uttering it has the same view

whichever his/her language. An English man or

woman even would have in view a domesticated

animal trained for hunting or watching or may be,

used as a companion animal. But other semantic

definitions are possible quite different from the

previous one. In Eskimo society the [content] dog is

equivalent to working dog used as a sled dog. The

Persian would define it as a sacred animal. Hindu

people on the opposite would have a pejorative

definition of it as a pariah (Hjelmslev, 1971a)

In this example we have at least four

definitions of the content ‘dog’. We will say that

there are four meanings, or in Hjelmslev’s terms,

four different substances of the content associated to

the same form of content. As a form of content,

‘dog’ contrasts with other possible forms of content

such as ‘cat’ or ‘cow’. The mechanism which

associates a form of content to a substance of

content is denoted by Hjelmslev as a signification.

We adopt this definition.

These different meanings that occur on the

plane of content according to the culture of the

speakers correspond to as many views produced

from as many different viewpoints. Let us admit that

this definition is sufficient for us within the scope of

this paper. As Hjelmslev stressed it, this mechanism

of signification transposes itself onto the plane of

expression. This transposition is essential for us. We

will return to it when we examine the question of

multimodality.

On the basis of this definition of viewpoint, it is

necessary to emphasize a point in relation with this

process of negotiation, where “views are exchanged,

compared, criticized, and possibly changed, with the

aim to reach a set of compatible views that can be

seen as organizationally constructed knowledge”

(Gazendam, 2004). This point is the following. Let

us call confrontation of viewpoints the first phase of

this process where views are exchanged and

compared. In order that a signification can be

formed, that is, in order that a viewpoint is

comprehended, it is necessary that this viewpoint

can confront itself with another viewpoint. In other

words, a viewpoint could not exist – at least could

not be comprehended – if there are not any other

viewpoints since no signification can be formed in

this case. The proof of this claim is based on

rephrasing of the description of the formation of the

signification proposed in the article of Hjelmslev

(Hjelmslev, 1971a). In this transposition, a

confrontation of viewpoints is identified with

semiosis (Galarreta, 2008) – or with the semiotic

function, in Hjelmslev’s term. This condition of

existence – and of analysis – of viewpoints is one of

the more notable epistemological features of the

semiotic theory which as a conceptual building, aims

at clarifying the condition of grasping and of

production of the meaning of “being in the presence

of other viewpoints”. This is this theoretical project

that we call a multi-viewpoints semiotics

4.2 Elements of a Multi-Viewpoint

Semiotics

View (with respect to a viewpoint): we have

identified it with the signification produced by the

viewpoint.

Let us insist on the fact that a viewpoint could

not exist apart from a situation of confrontation with

other viewpoints. However the necessity of a

confrontation is in no way related to the fact that the

resulting significations are assessed well formed or

acceptable as on a semantic plane.

ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations

Correlation of viewpoints: What can be observed in

many cases (with respect to a given viewpoint) is

that new significations – or views – are produced

which are judged as better formed or more

acceptable. A similar evolution is to happen for the

other viewpoints in presence. We will denote these

conjoined evolutions, the correlation of the

viewpoints in presence. Even if they can be

observed, these evolutions are not yet described

within our theory since they are akin to a negotiation

process.

Within this framework it is possible to define such

notions as knowledge, context

[14]

, and identity

(Galarreta, 1997).

 Knowledge: A piece of knowledge is a view with

respect to a viewpoint as a result of a correlation

process with other viewpoints, assuming that a

confrontation took place before.

 Context: A context of a piece of knowledge with

respect to a viewpoint at a given moment is the

corresponding viewpoint and the collection of

viewpoints that are correlated with this one at

that moment.

 Identity: The producing of a piece of knowledge

therefore takes place during a negotiation

process. This process is interpretable as the

repairing of the identity of the object: (a) being

designed or (b) manifesting an anomaly the

cause of which is looked for, or (c) being the

target of a risk analysis process.

Let us summarize the results we obtained. In order

to overcome the distinction between internal and

external contexts and have a unified approach of

context at ours disposal, we propose a definition

based upon viewpoints and knowledge. Within our

semiotic project – viz. our multi-viewpoints theory –

viewpoints and knowledge receive a precise

acceptation. Within this theoretical framework, any

semiotic “object” emerges from a process combining

first a confrontation then a correlation of viewpoints.

A view of this object is then (a piece of) knowledge

about this object. In such conditions the context of

this knowledge does not depends on the fact that the

object is materialized or not. And the viewpoints that

define this context get their existence from their

mutual confrontation.

5 VIEWPOINTS AND

MULTIMODALITY

Although Hjelmslev advocates the equivalence of

the plane of content and of the plane of expression,

this position is not intuitive.

Indeed the content is usually assimilated to thought

and the plane of expression to a coding. While

content is associated with an interiority, expression

corresponds to an exteriority. It is for this reason that

expression is wrongly considered as a coding of a

thought. This thought is often identical – at least for

English speaking individual – to utterances

expressed in English which could therefore appears

as the universal language of human thought.

As soon as we consider a language that we

cannot speak fluently, it is natural for us to reduce it

to its plane of expression. It is for that reason that we

shall say that the execution of a gesture or a series of

gestures in order to accept or refuse something,

point to something or thank someone, are the

expressions of such contents – expressions of which

we can give a version in English.

If on the other hand I say that such expression

– meaningful and expressed in natural language, for

example « yesterday, I worked » – signifies the

execution of a given gesture or a series of gestures –

for example by using the sign language (see fig. 1) –

then I seem to reverse the usual orientation of the

attribution of content in an expression. Nevertheless

in this case “Yesterday, I worked” becomes the

expression of a content which is the corresponding

sequence that produces someone using the sign

language

(Moody, 1983).

One can object that it is only another coding

such as this one: If I say “good morning” it means

‘yes’, if I say “How are you”, it means ‘no’. But in

such a case we would not be any more then in the

case of language such as English, French or sign

language that Hjelmslev defined as not restricted

languages

(Hjelmslev, 1971b) by opposition

restricted languages – which correspond roughly

speaking to formalized languages. Hjelmslev in this

article detailed the features that possess a non

restricted language and that distinguish it from a

restricted language. For instance in the case of a non

restricted language it is impossible to reduce the

two planes to only one thanks to an isomorphism

that could have existed between the two planes.

Let us return to the example related to the sign

language. The expressing in English of gestures or

series of gestures considered as elements of content,

transforms the plane usually associated to a

translation in English into a plane of expression. It is

therefore the plane associated to gestures which

becomes the plane of content. Such a conversion

depends on the point of view of the analyst who

analyses and describes the signifying elements that

he/she is faced with. With other words, such

A SEMIOTIC APPROACH OF CONTEXTS FOR PERVASIVE SYSTEMS

conversion depends on the fact that the analyst

decides to adopt the point of view either of hearing

person or of deaf person (practicing the sign

language). Once the choice is made, the proper

character of each type of analysis follows. This

choice is generally not a matter of will but rather a

matter of natural competency of the analyst.

Figure 1: Inversion of the planes of content and expression

when shifting from the viewpoint an English speaker to

the viewpoint of person using sign language.

(Moody, 1983).

One should expect that an analyst who adopts the

point of view of the sign language, produces an

analysis of the two semiotic plane using (or in

reference to) sign language. Symmetrically, an

analyst adopting the point of view of English or

French should develop his/her analysis of those two

semiotic planes using accordingly English or French.

Let us emphasize the fact that for an analyst the

expression is always associated to a particular

modality: auditory, visual, and tactile (e.g. Braille)

and kinaesthetic. This characteristic cannot be

ignored. The plane of content is analysable in the

language of the analyst whereas, the plane of

expression faces the analyst with its otherness.

In this example, we will remember that the

viewpoint of the other – the one of the deaf person in

the case of a hearing analyst, or the viewpoint of the

hearing person for a deaf analyst – associated to the

semiotic plane of expression is always marked by a

modality.

The situation we described – a deaf person

practising the sign language and an analyst being

alternatively deaf or hearing – could appear

marginal. In fact, it illustrates after being transposed,

a rather usual situation. It is for instance the case of

a person who translates a text from one language to

another. It is also the situation of someone who is

trying to understand a “difficult” text.

When the understanding of the text is obtained,

that is when the confrontation – i.e. the interpretative

process – succeeded, the meaning effect appears

which creates the illusion that the “thought” is

entirely within the plane of content and that the

plane of expression is itself so to speak absorbed

within the plane of content.

6 IMPLEMENTATION OF A

SEMIOTIC MULTIMODAL

CONTEXT

From the previous section follows that the

viewpoints are neither internal nor external since

that qualification depends on the position of an

analyst, besides within this analysis, each viewpoint

is marked with a particular modality. It therefore

turns out that the existence of knowledge – and of its

associated semiotic object – of context and of

corresponding identity – for that object – depend on

multimodal situation: a process combining first a

confrontation then a correlation of “multimodal

viewpoints”. This way we adopt in analysing this

situation is confirmed by works conducted on

multimodality outside the semiotic field. We can

draw several lessons from these works for the design

of a pervasive environment.

A first example is provided by works carried

out within the domain of literacy and education. In

an article entitled “Sedimented Identities in Texts:

Instances of Practice”, (Rowsell and Pahl, 2007) two

research Jennifer Rowsell and Kate Pahl, examine

the role of multimodality

They insist on the fact that “the process of

making meaning starts when meaning makers

assemble Discourses [...] negotiate them, transform

them, and materialize them in a text/artefact”. They

described this process as pattern recognition.

"Thinking and using language is an active matter of

assembling the situated meanings that you need for

action in the world". “Fundamental to the concept of

sedimented identity is the understanding that

individuals (children, adolescents, and adults,

differently but equally) make meaning and produce

texts through multiple modalities. This

understanding needs to be a starting point in literacy

research”. “Researchers can identify the concept of

sedimented identities when tracing identity

narratives over time, in ethnographic projects, for

example. They can do so when coding transcripts

and making links between texts, such as children's

texts, oral discourse, parental narratives, and home

field visits. Visual data can also fill out and enable

understanding of the history of texts and text making

across the domains of home and school”.

In a different context the researcher Minoru

Hokari tried to explore (Hokari, 2000), what is the

meaning of (1) movement, (2) an open and flexible

system of knowledge, and (3) the three temporal

dimensions, in the Gurindji mode of historical

practice. The Gurindji are aboriginal from the

ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations

Daguragu Aboriginal Community, Northern

Territory (Australia).

It is not possible to sum up this interesting

paper. But we will mention importance of mobility

in their historical practice. For Gurindji, history is

happening all over the country so that their mobility

is essential to physically access history.

Furthermore, mobility creates the unique

relationship between their ‘self’ and the world. They

find their ‘self’ in relation to the web of connection:

connection with other beings, other countries and

other community members. Naturally, their

historical practice becomes relationalised into the

web of connection as well. They are not the central

figure of a practising history. Nor can they practise

the history by themselves. Instead, their historical

practice must ‘connect’ to the places, Dreaming,

countries and people. It is therefore interesting to

emphasize the fact that their knowledge is

distributed. Using our semiotic framework, we can

say that thanks to their movements throughout their

environment –mental or physical – they are able

amplify the confrontation and correlation of their

viewpoints. “Places and your body connect each

other and create histories every time differently in

particular contexts». Those examples we examined

are not based upon IT systems but stresses the fact

that there exists in our environment distributed tools

that allows so to speak “writing” of “objects”

involved in semiotic processes. By their distribution

in our everyday life and by the multimodality that

they induce, they contribute to the production of

identities and of a collective memory.

7 CONCLUSIONS

After considering different acceptation of context in

use in context-aware computing, we advocated a

semiotic definition of context. We proposed such a

semiotic definition within a knowledge oriented

approach of organizational semiotics – viz. a multi-

viewpoints semiotics. We then examined the relation

between viewpoints and multimodality and observed

how a semiotic and multimodal context may already

be implemented in our environment. The semiotic

conceptual building we developed offers a

convenient approach in elucidating the question of

context. What can be remembered from the

examples we proposed, is the possibility of a

“semiotisation” of our external environment –

intimately related to our semiotic competency – a

“semiotisation” level for man.

REFERENCES

Brézillon P., Pomerol, J.C., 1999. Contextual knowledge

sharing and cooperation in intelligent assistant

systems. Le Travail Humain, 62(3):223–246.

Brown, P. G., Bovey, J. D., Chen X, 1997. Context-aware

applications: From the laboratory to the marketplace.

IEEE Personal Communications, 4(5):58–64, October.

Dey, A. K., 2000. Providing Architectural Support for

Building Context-Aware Applications. PhD thesis,

College of Computing, Georgia Institute of

Technology.

Fontanille, J., 1997. Sémiotique du discours. Presses

universitaires de Limoges.

Galarreta, D., 1997. A viewpoints approach of context and

memory in the empiric case of a space mission.

European Conference on Cognitive Science. April 9-

11, Manchester, UK. (pp. 243-247).

Galarreta, D., 2004. Designing Space Systems in multi-

viewpoints semiotics, In: Liu K (eds), Kluwer

Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Galarreta, D., 2008. A Contribution of a Multi-Viewpoints

Semiotics to Knowledge Representation Issues. ICCS

2008 Toulouse, 11 July.

Gazendam H. W. M., 2004. Organizational Semiotics: a

state of the art report. Semiotix, 2004, Volume 1,

Issue 1. March 23. http://www.semioticon.com

/semiotix)

Gwizdka, J., 2000. What’s in the context? Proceedings of

Workshop on The What, Who, Where, When, and

How of Context-Awareness, Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2000), April.

Hjelmslev, L., 1971a. La stratification du langage. Essais

Linguistiques. Les Editions de Minuit, Paris,. (pp.45-

77).

Hjelmslev, L., 1971b. La structure fondamentale du

langage. In Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage.

Les Editions de Minuit, Paris. pp.179-231

Hokari, M., 2000.Gurindji, Perspectives on History: Body,

Place, Memory, Habitus 2000: A Sense of Place, J.R.

Stephens (editor), Perth: Curtin University of

Technology.

Moody, B., 1983. La Langue des Signes. International

Visual Theatre. Ellipses. p. 75.

Mostéfaoui, G. K., Pasquier-Rocha, J., Brézillon, P . ,

2004. Context-Aware Computing: A Guide for the

Pervasive Computing Community. Proceedings of the

IEEE/ACS International Conference on Pervasive

Services (ICPS’04). IEEE 0-7695-2535-0/04.

Rastier, F., 1998. Le problème épistémologique du

contexte et le statut de l’interprétation dans les

sciences du langage. In Diversité de la (des) science(s)

du langage aujourd’hui. Langages, N°129.pp.97-111.

Rowsell J., Pahl, K., 2007. Sedimented Identities in Texts:

Instances of Practice. Reading Research Quarterly,

Vol. 42, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2007). (pp. 388-404).

Schilit, B., Theimer, M., 1994. Disseminating active map

information to mobile hosts. IEEE Network, 8(5):22–

32, July.

A SEMIOTIC APPROACH OF CONTEXTS FOR PERVASIVE SYSTEMS

Stamper, R.K., Liu K., 1994. Organisational Dynamics,

Social Norms and Information Systems. Proceedings

of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, IEEE 1060-3425194

Stamper, R.K., 2009. A Pragmatic Web Workshop. I-

Semantics '09, Graz, Austria.

ICISO 2010 - International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations