skip to main content
research-article

Extended Features of Task Models for Specifying Cooperative Activities

Published:30 June 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this paper, an extended version of task models is discussed that allows detailed specifications of cooperative activities. Within the presented specification CoTaL (Cooperative Task Language), there exist two complementary types of task models called role model and team model. One or more instances of each role model describe the specific activities of actors. The team model represents joined activities and reflects progression in cooperation between role instances. For each scenario there exists one instance of the team model. Preconditions and events can be assigned to tasks and refer to one or all running instances of a role model. An event can be a starting or finishing trigger and is activated as result of task executions. Additionally, variables can be defined. They are bound within the specified context during runtime and get the value of the identifier of a certain role instance. In this way, communication and collaboration between different actors can be specified. Tasks of a team model cannot be performed directly but present the result of the execution of other (role) models only. However, a team model can restrict the execution of role model instances.

It is shown how such models can be used to specify the activities in a smart meeting room. Snapshots of their simulation in CoTaSE (Cooperative Task Specification Environment) are presented. Additionally to the local implementation there exists an implementation in a cloud. It allows real cooperative executions of tasks.

References

  1. W.M.P. van der Aalst, and A.H.M. ter Hofstede. 2005. YAWL: yet another workflow language. Inf. Syst. 30, 4 (June 2005), 245--275. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Anett. 2004. Hierarchical Task Analysis. In The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Diaper Dan, Stanton Neville. (Eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004, 67--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M.G. Armentano, and A. Amandi. 2009. Recognition of User Intentions for Interface Agents with Variable Order Markov Models. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. Springer Berlin, 173--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. {4}A. Awad, A. Grosskopf, A. Meyer, and M. Weske. 2009. Enabling resource assignment constraints in BPMN. Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam. http://bpt.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/pub/Public/AndreasMeyer/Enabling_Resource_Assignment_Constraints_in_BPMN.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. F. Bergenti, G. Caire, and D. Gotta. 2012. Supporting user-centric business processes with WADE. Proc AMAS 2012. 1435--1436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. BPMN: http://www.bpmn.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Brüning, M. Gogolla, and P. Forbrig. 2010. Modeling and Formally Checking Workflow Properties Using UML and OCL. BIR 2010. 130--145Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Brüning and P. Forbrig. 2011. TTMS: A Task Tree Based Workflow Management System. In BPMDS 2011 and EMMSAD 2011 LNBIP, vol. 81. T. Halpin, S. Nurcan, J. Krogstie, P. Soffer, E. Proper, R. Schmidt, and I. Bider (Eds.). Springer, Heidelberg, 186--200Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Crampton and H. Khambhammettu. 2017. Delegation and Satisfyability in Workflow Systems. In Proc. of SACMAT'08. 31--40 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. CTTE: http://giove.cnuce.cnr.it/ctte.html, last visited January 6th 2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Fichtenbauer and A. Fleischmann. 2016. Three Dimensions of Process Models Regarding their Execution. S-BPM ONE 2016. 7:1--7:8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Fleischmann, W. Schmidt, C. Stary, S. Obermeier and E. Börger. 2012. Subject-Oriented Business Process Management. Springer, ISBN 978--3--642--32391--1, pp. I-XV, 1--375 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Fleischmann and C. Stary. 2012. Whom to talk to? A stakeholder perspective on business process development. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11(2), 125--150, free download http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10209-011-0236-x Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Fleischmann, W. Schmidt, and C. Stary. 2013. Open S-BPM= open innovation. In S-BPM ONE-Running Processes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 295--320Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. Fleischmann, W. Schmidt, and C. Stary. 2015. Requirements Specification as Executable Software Design -- A Behavior Perspective, in {27} 9--18Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. P. Forbrig, A. Dittmar, J. Brüning, and M. Wurdel. 2011. Making Task Modeling Suitable for Stakeholder-Driven Workflow Specifications. HCI (5) 2011. 51--60 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. P. Forbrig. 2012. Interactions in Smart Environments and the Importance of Modelling. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction - Romanian Journal of HCI, http://rochi.utcluj.ro/rrioc/articole/RoCHI-2012/RoCHI-2012-Forbrig.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. Forbrig and G. Buchholz. 2017. Subject-Oriented Specification of Smart Environments, Proc. 9th Conference on Subject-oriented Business Process Management, S-BPM ONE 2017, ACM 2017, ISBN 978-1-4503-4862-1, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3040570 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Guerrero, J. Vanderdonckt, and J.M. Gonzalez Calleros. 2008. FlowiXML: a Step towards Designing Workflow Management Systems. In Journal of Web Engineering, 2008, Volume 4, Number 2, 163--182 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. HAMSTERS: https://www.irit.fr/recherches/ICS/softwares/hamsters/, last visited January 6th 2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Johnson, H. Johnson, R. Waddington, and A. Shouls. 1988. Task-Related Knowledge Structures: Analysis, Modelling and Application. BCS HCI 1988. 35--62 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. P. Johnson, S. Wilson, P. Markopoulos, and J. Pycock. 1993. ADEPT: Advanced Design Environment for. Prototyping with Task Models. INTERCHI 1993. 56--56 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. P. Kiefer. 2012: Mobile Intention Recognition. In: Mobile Intention Recognition. Springer New York, 11--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Kohn. 1992. No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 1992, ISBN 978-0-395-63125-6. 19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. I.J. Marinez-Moyano. 2006. Exploring the Dynamics of Collaboration in Interorganizational Settings. In Creating a Culture of Collaboration. Schuman (Ed.). Jossey-bass, 2006. Ch. 4, p. 83. ISBN 0-7879-8116-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. C. Martinie,E. Barboni, D. Navarre, P. Palanque, R. Fahssi, E. Poupart, and E. Cubero-Castan. 2014. Multi-models-based engineering of collaborative systems: application to collision avoidance operations for spacecraft. EICS 2014. 85--94 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Matulevičius, R. et al. (Eds.): REFSQ Workshop proceedings. 2015. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1342/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. OCL: http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/, last visited January 6th 2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. O. Palanque and C. Martinie. Designing and Assessing Interactive Systems Using Task Models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 976--979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. F. Paternò. 1999. Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Application. Springer Verlag. ISBN 1-85233-155-0 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. V:M:R: Penichet, M.D. Lozano, J.A. Gallud, and R. Tesoriero. 2007. Task Modelling for Collaborative Systems. TAMODIA 2007. 287--292 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Pesic, M.H. Schonenberg, N. Sidorova, and W. M. P. Van Der Aalst. 2007. Constraint-based workflow models: change made easy. In Proceedings of the 2007 OTM Confederated international conference on On the move to meaningful internet systems: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS - Volume Part I (OTM'07). Robert Meersman and Zahir Tari (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 77--94 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. R.J. Robles and T. Kim. 2010. Context Aware Systems, Methods and Trends in Smart Home Technology. In Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 78 (2010). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 149--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. C. Ramos, G. Marreiros, R. Santos, and C.F. Freitas. 2010. Smart Offices and Intelligent Decision Rooms. In Handbook of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments. Springer US, 851--880.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. V. Schwartze, S. Feuerstack, S. Albayrak. 2009. Behavior-Sensitive User Interfaces for Smart Environments. In Digital Human Modeling. ICDHM 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5620. Duffy V.G. (Eed.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. N. Seyff, N. Maiden, K. Karlsen, J. Lockerbie, P. Grünbacher, F. Graf, and C. Ncube. 2009. Exploring how to use scenarios to discover requirements. In Requirements Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 2. Springer-Verlag 2009. 91--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. A. Solano, T. Granollers, C. Collazos, and C. Rusu. 2014. Proposing Formal Notation for Modeling Collaborative Processes Extending HAMSTERS Notation. WorldCIST (1) 2014. 257--266Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. K. Sousa, H. Mendonça, and J. Vanderdonckt. 2008. A Model-Driven Approach to Align Business Processes with User Interfaces, Journal UCS, vol. 14, issue 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. T. Tsukasa and T. Tamai. 2006. Rigorous Business Process Modeling with OCL. Fakultät Informatik, Dresden, 2006. 68. http://www-st.inf.tu-dresden.de/OCLApps2006/topic/acceptedPapers/18_Takemura_BPMwithOCL.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. UML: http://www.uml.org/, last visited January 6th 2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. G.C. Van der Veer, V.F. Lenting, and B.A. Bergevoet. 1996. GTA: Groupware Task Analysis - modeling complexity. Acta Psychologica, 91, (1996). 297--322Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. M. Wurdel, D. Sinnig, and P. Forbrig. 2008. CTML: Domain and Task Modeling for Collaborative Environments. In Journal of Universal Computer Science 14(19) (Special Issue on Human-Computer Interaction). 3188--3201Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. M. Zaki, P. Forbrig. 2013. Making task models and dialog graphs suitable for generating assistive and adaptable user interfaces for smart environments. In Proc. PECCS 2013. Barcelona, Spain (2013). 66--75Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Extended Features of Task Models for Specifying Cooperative Activities

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!