Persona Modeling Process

From Microdata-based Templates to Speciﬁc Web Ontologies

Stefan Negru and Sabin Buraga

Faculty of Computer Science, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, General Berthelot, 16, Iasi 700483, Romania

Keywords:

Personas, Knowledge Modeling, Semantic Web, Ontology, Microdata, Human-Computer Interaction.

Abstract:

The use of Personas method for communicating user requirements in Human-Computer Interaction is well

established and widely used. However, little research has been conducted regarding linking personas data

with other pieces of data concerning the product development and design process or even creating a personas

model. We consider that using semantic web technologies such as microdata and RDFa to annotate personas

data is and adequate step towards solving these issues. This paper aims to provide a conceptual model (a

HTML5 microdata schema and an OWL speciﬁcation) that includes concepts and properties used to model

personas. In order to exemplify our model and extract data, we made use of a semantically annotated persona

template.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Personas method was proposed by Cooper

(Cooper, 1999; Cooper et al., 2007) and has gained

increasing attention in the Human-Computer Interac-

tion (HCI) ﬁeld, as it facilitates the communication

of information about target users among the project

team members (Pruitt and Adlin, 2010), but also pro-

vides a greater understanding of the main audience.

Considering these advantages, many companies such

as Microsoft, SAP, FedEx have adopted personas as

a part of their design process (Blomquist and Ar-

vola, 2002; Chapman and Milham, 2006; Drego and

Dorsey, 2010; Drego et al., 2010; Browne, 2011).

A persona is regarded as a user archetype which

can be used to “help guide decisions about product

features, navigation, interactions, and even visual de-

sign” (Goodwin, 2005). Being an archetype, a per-

sona represents a group of users who share common

behavioral or physical characteristics, goals, frustra-

tions, preferences and other similar characteristics.

Even though a persona represents a group of users,

a ﬁctional individual is created, based on user in-

terviews, to represent speciﬁc aspects of that group

(Pruitt and Adlin, 2010).

Despite the popularity of this method, there are

several debates (Long, 2009) regardingthe implemen-

tation of this technique as many authors advocate dis-

tinct differences in the way which it can be used. Also

“there have been no adequate studies addressing the

reliability, validity, or utility of the method ” (Chap-

man and Milham, 2006), and – even if methodologi-

cal problems were overcome –, this technique suffers

certain practical limitations: “how personas are rec-

onciled with other information, and who is responsi-

ble for interpreting them.” (Chapman and Milham,

2006). Additionally, validating the obtained informa-

tion can be time consuming and troublesome, as the

personas proﬁles are validated manually against on-

line user proﬁles or through the customer service team

(Caddick and Cable, 2011).

Ontologies have proven to be a very useful tool

in modeling data concepts and relationships between

them, by providing semantics for humans and formal-

ism for machine processing and reasoning. Also, mi-

croformats

, RDFa

and microdata

enable the pub-

lication and consumption of the data available on the

Web – particularly, using the HTML5

vocabulary.

In this paper we take into consideration such se-

mantic web technologies, as a ﬁrst step towards sol-

ving the issues presented above, and opening new

possibilities such as automatically validation and gen-

eration of personas based on online user proﬁles. We

propose PersonasOnto ontology as a way of modeling

personas related concepts and their relationships.

http://microformats.org/

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/

http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

Negru S. and Buraga S..

Persona Modeling Process - From Microdata-based Templates to Speciﬁc Web Ontologies.

DOI: 10.5220/0004127000340042

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD-2012), pages 34-42

ISBN: 978-989-8565-30-3

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

The next section of the paper offers a review of

related work. We continue with a discussion regard-

ing several aspects of the personas method. Section 4

presents the personas knowledge modeling, and sec-

tion 5 illustrates several use cases. The article ends

with conclusions and future directions of research.

2 RELATED WORK

The interest on describing persons and user proﬁles

has a wide spread as several vocabularies such as

FOAF

, SIOC

and Person

offer facile manner to

publish information in a machine-readable format.

Also, as the need for software system (Razmerita

et al., 2003; Negru, 2010; Cheng et al., 2011) to auto-

matically adapt to their users has increased, a number

of domain speciﬁc ontologies concerning user proﬁles

have been developed.

Such ontologies – as (Felden and Linden, 2007;

Cena et al., 2011) – explore the implications of

user models in the context of recommender systems.

Also, (Razmerita, 2007) presents a generic ontology-

based user modeling architecture applied in Knowl-

edge Management Systems. Other related work such

as (Golemati et al., 2007) provides a standard ontol-

ogy for modeling user proﬁles with the aim of facili-

tating communications between applications.

A related ontology is AEGIS ontology

which

helps the mapping between accessibility concepts,

and how they can be mapped within accessibility sce-

narios.

As most of the existing user proﬁling ontologies

the related work presented above emphasizes the im-

portance of context awareness. This aspect and other

relevant user modeling issues are reviewed in (Fis-

cher, 2001).

Although seemingly overlapping concepts per-

sonas and user proﬁles, they are different. Personas

represent a group of users who share characteristics

and preferences, while user proﬁles (also known as

user models) are a collection of personal data asso-

ciated to speciﬁc users or stereotypes. Despite these

differences, certain aspects regarding user modeling

techniques can be transposed on the personas method.

In the next section we will consider a few aspects

regarding the personas method.

http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/

http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/

http://schema.org/Person

http://www.aegis-project.eu/

3 PERSONAS METHOD

Unlike the target audience segmentation or user pro-

ﬁling, personas provide greater depth and context to

generic target audience groups by focusing on one

archetype which embodies the predominant qualities

of the larger group. These qualities are often struc-

tured by a persona document (speciﬁcation) (Long,

2009; Pruitt and Adlin, 2010; Caddick and Cable,

2011).

The data included into this document is a result

of user interviews and it is distilled into one or mul-

tiple ﬁctitious characters which corresponds to a cer-

tain persona type (Cooper et al., 2007). In this doc-

ument, each character is developed in greater detail,

along with scenarios which describe how that char-

acter might interact with a product. The persona and

their associated scenarios form the basis for specify-

ing how users want to experience and interact with a

certain product or application.

Figure 1: Overview of the personas HTML5 template.

3.1 Personas Document Template

As an important part of this method is the persona

document and the information it contains, we devel-

oped our own HTML5 template

(Figure 1), follow-

ing existing guidelines (Long, 2009; Pruitt and Adlin,

publicly available at: http://blankdots.com/open/ per-

sonas/

PersonaModelingProcess-FromMicrodata-basedTemplatestoSpecificWebOntologies

2010; Caddick and Cable, 2011). Being a HTML doc-

ument which contains informationsemantically anno-

tated by using microdata/RDFa, it facilitates publica-

tion, consumption, and reuse of information.

The template is structured as follows:

1. Type and Background Information – contains de-

tails regarding the persona type and ﬁctional back-

ground information such as birthday, name, gen-

der, location and other information of interest;

2. Main Details – consists of a detailed description

regarding this persona along with some character-

istics (main points), goals and frustrations;

3. Scenarios – includes either a description of sce-

nario tasks or images depicting scenarios;

4. Other Details – contains other relevant notes re-

garding the persona.

In the next section we will discuss how we can make

use of this HTML template and annotate relevant data

using existing vocabularies and our proposed vocabu-

lary.

4 PERSONAS ONTOLOGY

ENGINEERING

As we previously mentioned, several existing

widely used vocabularies like as FOAF and

schema.org/Person

could be utilized, thus we

applied such vocabularies to annotate information in

our HTML template.

In a small scale experiment, we provided our tem-

plate to several teams working on different projects

to ﬁll up with information. Using existing tools –

such as RDFa Distiller

and Microdata to RDF Dis-

tiller

– we extracted the data presented below, from

a project’s personas document. This data consists of

RDF triples expressed in Turtle format.

[ a schema:Person;

schema:givenName "Jane"@en-us;

schema:familyName "Doe"@en-us;

schema:gender "Female"@en-us;

schema:birthDate "1989-05-11"ˆˆxsd:date;

schema:image <student.jpg>;

schema:location [ a schema:Place;

schema:name "City,Country"@en-us ];

schema:worksFor [ a schema:Organization;

schema:jobTitle "Student"@en-us;

schema:name

"Univ. City,Country"@en-us ];

schema:alumniOf

[ a schema:EducationalOrganization

http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/

http://www.w3.org/2012/pyMicrodata/

schema:name

"Univ. City,Country"@en-us ] ]

The data obtained is unsatisfactory as it omits se-

veral important pieces of data from the persona doc-

ument. In order to solve this issue, we modeled our

own Persona microdata schema.

4.1 Persona Schema

One advantage of the HTML5 microdata is that it is

designed such that each piece of information in a doc-

ument has assigned types from a single vocabulary,

though each entity may have several types and prop-

erties from other vocabularies (W3C, Interest Group ,

2012). Additionally, the Person schema offers prop-

erties such as afﬁliation, interactionCount (count of a

speciﬁc user interactions with an item), performerIn,

spouse, awards etc. which facilitates to establish cer-

tain knowledge regarding the user background and

context.

Another important aspect is that

schema.org

al-

lows the extension of existing schema, and we made

use of it in this section by developing the Personas

schema

. As represented in Table 1, we proposed a

set of new properties such as personaType, tagLine,

mainPoint, frustrationPoint, endGoal, scenario, con-

text and other. Some properties like myersBriggs and

topicInterest were inspired from the FOAF vocabu-

lary.

Properties like minHeigh, maxWeight, minFeet-

Size refer to a persona body measurement such as

height, weight, bust size, waist size, and feet size. We

used min and max values instead of a range, due to

the fact that they are more precise than a range.

Along with some of the new properties, we pro-

posed several additional schemas like Disability, Per-

sonality, Emotion, Scenario and Context, in order to

provide a more detailed vocabulary which ﬁts our pur-

poses. These schemas themselves come along with

new properties and a range which speciﬁes expected

data types.

The Scenario schema has the following new prop-

erties and expected data types:

• product: A product (subject of a given usability

test); for example, a software application or even

a physical product such as mobile phone or car.

Expected Type: Product or Application;

• scenarioName: Scenario name. Expected Type:

Text;

• userTask: Tasks to be performed by the user. Ex-

pected Type: Text;

publicly available at: http://blankdots.com/open/

schema/

KEOD2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

Table 1: Persona Schema Properties and Description.

Property Expected Type Description

personaType

Text

The type of Persona: Primary, Secondary, Negative, Supplemen-

tal, Served or Customer.

tagline URL or Text A tagline speciﬁc to a persona.

mainPoint Text Main points speciﬁc to the persona category.

minHeight, max-

Height

Float Minimum and maximum height of a persona.

minWeight,

maxWeight

Float Minimum and maximum body weight of a persona.

minBustSize,

maxBustSize

Float Minimum and maximum bust size of a persona.

minWaistSize,

maxWaistSize

Float Minimum and maximum waist size of a persona.

minFeetSize,

maxFeetSize

Float Minimum and maximum feet size of a persona.

experienceGoal Text Experience goals are simple, universal, and personal.

endGoal Text

End goals represent the user’s motivation for performing the tasks

associated with using a speciﬁc product.

lifeGoal Text

Life goals represent personal aspirations of the user that typically

go beyond the context of the product being designed.

businessGoal URL or Text

Business goals represent the goals of the organization the persons

works for.

technicalGoal

Text

Technical goals reﬂect technical aspects regarding an applica-

tion/product for example: run in a variety of browser, data privacy

etc.

experienceLevel Text

Reﬂects the experience level of a persona with the application or

product; proposed levels: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced.

technicalLevel Text Reﬂects the technical level of a persona.

disability

Disability or Text

A persona disability/disabilities relevant to accessibility aspects of

the application/product.

myersBriggs

Personality or Text

Inspired by FOAF Myers Briggs personality classiﬁcation which

includes 16 4-letter textual codes (Myers et al., 1998).

topicInterest

Thing

A thing of interest for a certain persona, inspired by FOAF topic

interest.

affectiveState Emotion or Text

The affective state of the user at a certain moment, if a proper

schema is not used, please provide a certain emotion using text

format.

frustrationPoint Text

Elements of a UI/UX or certain characteristics that frustrate the

user or (s)he sees as pain points. These elements will help in us-

ability evaluation.

userRole Text

The role of the user in the application/product (if necessary - for

example: admin, basic user etc.).

scenario Scenario or URL

The scenario where the users represented by this persona will be

used to test the usability.

context Context

Description of the context that best ﬁts a scenario recommended

values: Physical/Virtual.

otherNotes Text Other notes and observations regarding a persona.

• productTask: Task performed by the product in

response to the user. Expected Type: Text;

• interactionMedium: The medium of interaction;

for example, Touch, Gestural, Mouse+keyboard

etc. Expected Type: Text;

• description: Description of the scenario. Ex-

pected Type: URL or Text;

• context: Scenario context. Expected Type: Con-

text;

• participant: Participants to this scenario. Ex-

pected Type: Person;

PersonaModelingProcess-FromMicrodata-basedTemplatestoSpecificWebOntologies

• usabilityTest: Usability test. Expected Type: Us-

abilityTest or Text;

• evaluatedElements: Focus/key elements in this

scenario, tested later on, for example notiﬁcations

element from the user interface. Expected Type:

Text.

The Context schema has the following properties:

• contextType: Context type – recommended va-

lues: Physical/Virtual or Tangible/Intangible;

• location: Useful information about the location;

• event: An event has a location and a time;

• geo: The geographical coordinates of the context;

• sensorData: Sensors context data;

• photos: Photographs regarding the context;

• reviews: A set of reviews regarding the context.

Disability schema contains the following proper-

ties: visualImpairment, hearingImpairment, gusta-

toryImpairment, somatosensoryImpairment, intellec-

tualImpairment, mentalEmotionalDisorder, develop-

mentalDisability.

After modeling these schemas, we annotated the

information in the HTML template using the above

vocabularies and we extracted the data below.

[a <http://schema.org/Person/Persona>;

schema:givenName "Jane"@en-us;

schema:familyName "Doe"@en-us;

schema:gender "Female"@en-us;

schema:birthDate "1989-05-11"ˆˆxsd:date;

schema:image <student.jpg>;

schema:location [ a schema:Place;

schema:name "City,Country"@en-us ];

schema:worksFor [ a schema:Organization;

schema:jobTitle "Student"@en-us;

schema:name

"Univ. City,Country"@en-us ];

schema:alumniOf

[ a schema:EducationalOrganization

schema:name

"Univ. City,Country"@en-us ];

schema:personaType "Primary"@en-us;

schema:mainPoint [ a rdf:Bag;

rdf:_1 "Experience with Android OS;"

@en-us;

rdf:_2 "connected socially to most of

her colleagues and some teachers.

"@en-us.];

schema:technicalLevel "Medium"@en-us;

schema:businessGoal

"increase knowledge"@en-us;

schema:experienceGoal

"getting a proper education"

@en-us;

schema:frustrationPoint [ a rdf:Bag;

rdf:_1 "hard to use"@en-us,

rdf:_2 "no feedback provided"

@en-us. ];

schema:lifeGoal "be productive"@en-us;

schema:scenario

[ a <http://schema.org/Scenario>;

schema:description "she will check

grades and progress online"@en-us ] ]

The obtained data contains all the relevant infor-

mation regarding a persona and could be processed

and linked with other data in the spirit of Linked Data

initiative (Bizer et al., 2009).

Although microdata is an easy way of annotating

HTML document, it cannot express two aspects that

RDFa supports: datatypes of literals and XML literals

(Vestlandsforsking, 2012).

4.2 Personas Ontology Description

This subsection presents a description of the Per-

sonasOnto

ontology. PersonasOnto provides a

mean of annotating XHTML

and HTML documents

with RDFa, but it can also be mapped in its RDF

representation to HTML5 microdata.

Table 2 presents an overview of the proposed on-

tology classes and subclasses and Figure 2 provides

a graphical representation of the ontology classes and

properties.

The Person class is the central one in the ontol-

ogy, as it contains characteristics such as age, gen-

der, name, date of birth, but also the Persona class.

As a subclass of Person, the Persona class could be

regarded of being a separate identity of a person, al-

though it has the same usage. Also, as we previously

mentioned, a persona represents the characteristics of

a group of persons, and usually has a context associ-

ated.

Classes such as AffectiveState, Personality, Dis-

ability, Organization are used to describe several

characteristics or a person like an emotion (e.g.

anger), a disability (such as partial blindness), his/her

personality (e.g. ESTJ – Extraversion, Sensing,

Thinking, Judgment) and the organization (s)he

works for, or (s)he is in.

Other classes like Context, Scenario, Task, Goals,

UsabilityTest and subclasses PersonaType are con-

nected with the Persona subclass. For example, a per-

sona has a certain type (Primary, Secondary, etc.), has

the characteristics of a (ﬁctional) person, has certain

life or experience Goals, (s)he performs certain tasks

in a scenario. The scenario is placed in a certain con-

text and can be also used in a usability test.

Many of the classes, subclasses and properties are

publicly available at: http://blankdots.com/open/

personasonto.owl

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

http://www.w3.org/RDF/

KEOD2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

Figure 2: Overview of the PersonasOnto ontology classes and properties.

Table 2: PersonasOnto Ontology and Upper Level Classes.

Class Name

Subclasses Class Description

AffectiveState

Emotion, Feeling, Mood The affective state of a person at a certain point.

Context

Intangible, Tangible, Place, Time The Context in which a scenario takes place.

Disability

VisualImpairment, HearingImpair-

ment, GustatoryImpairment, Intellectu-

alImpairment, MentalEmotionalDisorder,

SomoatosensoryImpairment, Develop-

mentDisability

A person’s disabilities mental and physical.

Goals

BusinessGoals, EndGoals, Experience-

Goals, LifeGoals, Technical Goals

The goals of a Persona.

Organization

Corporation, EducationalOrganization,

GovermentOrganization, Group, Medi-

umBusiness, NGO, SmallBusiness,

SportsTeam

The type of Organization a Person belongs to.

Person

Participant, Persona

Basic information about a person and more pre-

cisely about a participant or a persona.

Personality

– The MyersBriggs personality of a person.

Resource

Document, Image, Product Type of resources available.

Scenario

–

A series of tasks the user performs in a certain

context.

Task

InteractiveTask, NonInteractiveTask

Tasks performed by a Person in a Scenario. Inter-

activeTask could be certain action performed by a

user, NonInteractiveTask could be a machine re-

sponse to that action.

UsabilityTest

–

A usability test evaluates the usability of a certain

Product in a Scenario.

the same as in the Persona schema described in the

previous subsection. On the other hand, classes like

AffectiveState and Personality have certain properties

which better deﬁne the relationship between them.

PersonaModelingProcess-FromMicrodata-basedTemplatestoSpecificWebOntologies

Such a property is expressed below in Turtle

for-

mat.

### personasOnto.owl#hasInfluence

:hasInfluence rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;

rdfs:domain :Disability ;

rdfs:range [

rdf:type owl:Class ;

owl:unionOf ( :AffectiveState

:Personality )].

The Context Class includes a tangible (physical

world) or intangible (virtual world) environment, but

also could specify spatial and temporal concepts. This

inclusion is expressed below.

### personasOnto.owl##includes

:includes rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ;

rdfs:range [

rdf:type owl:Class ;

owl:unionOf ( :Place

:Time )] ;

rdfs:domain [

rdf:type owl:Class ;

owl:unionOf ( :Intangible

:Tangible )].

Other classes like UsabilityTest can be extended

to include domain speciﬁc concepts.

5 USE CASES

In section 2 we mentioned a small scale experiment

in which we provided our template to several teams

working on different projects in order to ﬁll up with

information. The purpose of such a project was to

build a web-based solution along with a mobile client,

for the management of the academic information (e.g.

grades, schedule, courses, assignments etc.).

The team responsible for this project identiﬁed in

a ﬁrst phase two primary personas: professors and

students – each of them having their own goals, frus-

trations and set of characteristics. We presented the

student persona in section 2 and the professor persona

is exempliﬁed below.

[ a <http://schema.org/Person/Persona>;

schema:givenName "John"@en-us;

schema:familyName "Doe"@en-us;

schema:gender "Male"@en-us;

schema:birthDate "1980-10-23"ˆˆxsd:date;

schema:image <proffesor.jpg>;

schema:location [ a schema:Place;

schema:name "City, Country"@en-us ];

schema:worksFor [ a schema:Organization;

schema:jobTitle "Proffesor" @en-us;

schema:name "City,Country"@en-us ];

schema:alumniOf

http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/

[ a schema:EducationalOrganization;

schema:name "Univ. City,Country"

@en-us];

schema:personaType "Primary"@en-us;

schema:mainPoint [ a rdf:Bag;

rdf:_1 "dislikes applications that

are not well structured;"@en-us,

rdf:_2 "has programming knowledge

"@en-us,

rdf:_3 "uses applications to

share courses data with students

and manage their progress"@en-us;

rdf:_4 "Working environment: Desktop

Mac OS, Mobile: IOS"@en-us.];

schema:technicalLevel "Advanced"@en-us;

schema:businessGoal

"increase student enrollment"

@en-us;

schema:endGoal "share courses"@en-us;

schema:experienceGoal

"organize work information and tasks"

@en-us;

schema:frustrationPoint [a rdf:Bag;

rdf:_1 "dislikes weak and bad

structured applications"@en-us,

rdf:_2 "slowness, hard to use and

no feedback provided"@en-us,

rdf:_3 "Unreliability"@en-us. ] ]

The ﬁrst challenge the team faced was to combine

all the data from the interviews to obtain the personas

document. But, as this team followed the method

and created several personas by interviewing users,

some teams created their personas by imagining pos-

sible characteristics and frustrations of their target au-

dience. This latter method requires validation against

real user data.

Both of these challenges could be solved by a

software system which incorporates in its knowledge

base a TBox component (Baader et al., 2007) based

on the PersonasOnto and the ABox populated with

data extracted from the personas document. The sys-

tem would be able to generate the personas document

based on a selection on online user proﬁles or validate

the created persona against an online user proﬁle.

Participant

Persona

isPartofPersona

involvedIn

Scenario

hasContext

Task

performs

Context

Tangible

Intangible

hasTask

Figure 3: Components of a Scenario.

As we see in Figure 3, a scenario contains seve-

ral components such as participants, tasks, and con-

KEOD2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment

text. From these components the context is the most

problematic as the changes that take place in both the

tangible (physical world) and intangible (e.g. virtual

world, software simulation) contexts have an impact

on the user, which performs a certain task.

In such a case, we need to link the data gathered in

the persona documentwith the data obtained in the us-

ability test, because some inconsistencies may arise.

For example, certain context conditions may have an

impact on the number of tasks a user has to do to, in

order to reach the end point of a scenario, thus gener-

ating new frustrations.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

This paper presented the PersonasOnto ontology

and Persona schema which incorporate concepts and

properties used to model personas. We also explored

the possibility of annotating information in a personas

document by using HTML5 microdata, thus making

such a web page machine-readable.

Existing vocabularies and research regarding user

proﬁling and personas have been taken into account,

in order to create an accurate personas model.

These vocabularies open new possibilities regard-

ing automatically validation and generation of per-

sonas based on online user proﬁles, but also linking

personas data with other data (e.g. data from a usabil-

ity test document or context data).

It is our future aim to study these issues, with the

purpose of incorporating them in a knowledge-driven

interactive system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was partially supported by the European

Social Fund in Romania, under the responsibility of

the Managing Authority for the Sectorial Operational

Program for Human Resources Development 2007-

2013 [grant POSDRU/107/1.5/S/78342].

REFERENCES

Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., and

Patel-Schneider, P. (2007). The Description Logic

Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applica-

tions. Cambridge University Press.

Bizer, C., Heath, T., and Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked

data-the story so far. International Journal on Seman-

tic Web and Information Systems, 5(3):122.

Blomquist, A. and Arvola, M. (2002). Personas in action:

ethnography in an interaction design team. In Pro-

ceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-

computer interaction, NordiCHI ’02, pages 197–200.

ACM.

Browne, J. (2011). Personas require regular updates. http://

bit.ly/ItrQxr.

Caddick, R. and Cable, S. (2011). Communicating the User

Experience: A Practical Guide for Creating Useful

UX Documentation. John Wiley & Sons.

Cena, F., Likavec, S., and Osborne, F. (2011). Propagating

user interests in ontology-based user model. In Pro-

ceedings of the 12th international conference on Arti-

ﬁcial intelligence around man and beyond, AI*IA’11,

pages 299–311. Springer.

Chapman, C. N. and Milham, R. P. (2006). The persona’s

new clothes: methodological and practical arguments

against a popular method. In Proceedings of the Hu-

man Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual

Meeting, pages 634–636. Sage Pub.

Cheng, D.-Y., Chao, K.-M., Lo, C.-C., and Tsai, C.-F.

(2011). A user centric service-oriented modeling ap-

proach. World Wide Web, 14:431–459.

Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum.

Macmillan Publishing.

Cooper, A., Reimann, R., and Cronin, D. (2007). About

Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. John

Wiley & Sons.

Drego, Vidya, L. and Dorsey, M. (2010). The ROI Of Per-

sonas. http://bit.ly/IkXI45.

Drego, Vidya, L., Dorsey, M., and Zinser, R. (2010).

Persona best practices of interactive agencies.

http://bit.ly/HFO1xX.

Felden, C. and Linden, M. (2007). Ontology-based user

proﬁling. In Proceedings of the 10th international

conference on Business information systems, BIS’07,

pages 314–327. Springer.

Fischer, G. (2001). User Modeling in HumanComputer In-

teraction. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interac-

tion, 11:65–86.

Golemati, M., Katifori, A., Vassilakis, C., Lepouras, G., and

Halatsis, C. (2007). Creating an ontology for the user

proﬁle: Method and applications. In In Proceedings of

the First International Conference on Research Chal-

lenges in Information Science (RCIS). IEEE.

Goodwin, K. (2005). Perfecting your personas. http://

bit.ly/2Syg7m.

Long, L. (2009). ’Real or Imaginary; the effectiveness of

using personas in product design. In Proceedings of

the Irish Ergonomics Society Annual Conference.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N., and Hammer,

A. (1998). MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Devel-

opment and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Negru, S. (2010). A conceptual architecture of an arduino-

based social-emotional interactive system. In Pro-

ceedings of the Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 6th In-

ternational Conference on Intelligent Computer Com-

munication and Processing, ICCP ’10, pages 93–98.

IEEE.

PersonaModelingProcess-FromMicrodata-basedTemplatestoSpecificWebOntologies

Pruitt, J. and Adlin, T. (2010). The Essential Persona Life-

cycle: Your Guide to Building and Using Personas.

Elsevier.

Razmerita, L. (2007). Ontology-based user modeling. In

Ontologies, volume 14 of Integrated Series in Infor-

mation Systems, pages 635–664. Springer.

Razmerita, L., Angehrn, A., and Maedche, A. (2003).

Ontology-based user modeling for knowledge man-

agement systems. In User Modeling 2003, volume

2702 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages

148–148. Springer.

Vestlandsforsking (2012). Semantic markup - report. http://

www.vestforsk.no/en/news/semantic-markup-report.

W3C, Interest Group (2012). HTML data guide. http://

www.w3.org/TR/html-data-guide/.

KEOD2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeEngineeringandOntologyDevelopment