You are on page 1of 4

Semantic Web and User Interface Literature Review Phases Guide

Ghislain Hachey October 19, 2010
The goal of this document is to guide me through the stages of my literature review on the Semantic Web and User Interfaces (UI). The stages are the ones defined by Cooper.

1

Problem Formulation for the Literature Review

Now that I have completed the planning for my literature review I can go through the stages of conducting the literature review as defined by Cooper. The first step is the problem formulation. This stage should define the questions to be addressed and the criteria for the exclusion and inclusion of papers to be analysed.

1.1

Literature Review Questions to be Answered

The questions listed here should be influenced by the focus and goal of my review outlined in my planning guide. I will note them here for convencience. • Focus on research and outcomes • Focus on practices and applications • Goal of analysis and integration of the targeted literature • Goal of indept critical analysis to proposed research questions Now keeping the above list in mind let’s develop a list of questions to be answered by our literature review on Semantic Web and UI. This list of question, of course, can and probably will change with time as I learn more about the researched subject and how to conduct literature reviews. • What is the state of intelligent user interfaces for mash-up, browsing, navigating, exploring and visualising data on the semantic web?

1

Following is a short list of those criteria I am developing.. • The paper had to be peer-reviewed and published. • The paper discusses a prototype of a UI for the semantic web • The paper discusses a semantic search engine but with a strong emphasis on the UI • The paper discusses a framework or architecture for UI application design for the semantic web • The paper discusses new research challenges for UI (i. intelligent and contextual intelligent user interface assistant.• What is the accessibility intelligent visual user interface for the semantic web (i. 1. if any..e.2 Literature Review Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria When writing an exhaustive literature review it is important to clearly identify inclusion and exclusion criteria for the collection of papers. streams. intelligentUI assistant.. that have been adopted and widely used in real life? • Real world use cases ??? • More to come.. • The paper discusses how to build a UI for the semantic web on legacy system?!?! • The paper reviews some aspects of the above criteria.) on the semantic web. interface metaphors. 2 . on what platforms can those UI run reliably)? • What has been done regarding new requirements of UIs for the semantic web such as interface methaphors. ontology visualization) • The paper discusses integration tools for the development of UI for the semantic web • The paper discusses UI for high volume data (sensors. metadata visualization. feeds. • Only include papers younger than 2003 • The paper discusses directly semantic web and user interface • The title and abstract must have all four keywords (semantic web user interface). Or. visualization for metadata and ontologies? • What are the UIs frameworks and applications.e. something obviously related such as having the four keywords “semantic web query interface” or “semantic web visualization interface”.

or keywords list) Following is a thorough documentation of the process of my data collection. The following conferences.Papers discussing the use of a particular tool or methodology where not included.. Someone else collecting papers for this literature review following the above criteria and searching the same databases (below) should also arrive at nearly the same list of papers. abstract.. Information to be recorded for each search conducted should include: • Date of search • Databases searched • Keywords and key combination used • Number of records resulting from each search • Number of records retained (needs at a minimum all four keywords in the title. My search begins with electronic databases and the Internet.?!?! Journals • International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (DONE) • Journal of Web Semantics (DONE) • IEEE Internet Computing (DONE) 3 . a paper discussing results of using Protege for some application would not be consedered here. workshops and journals were thoroughly searched: Conference (and their Workshops) • International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) (DONE) • European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC) (DONE) • Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC) (DONE) • International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (DONE) • ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (DONE) • International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) (DONE) • More. 2 Data Collection The data collection process must be thoroughly documented. For example.

In other word. their associated workshops. Each and every conference.. Explain here in details exactly HOW the search was conducted.?!?! Not all databases search have the same features and search capabilities. the keywords. For each database searched. The second round of data collection was conducted as follows.. The keywwords used were “semantic web user interface”. the title and abstract of every paper were individually looked at and only those with ALL keywords (semantic web user interface) were collected for further scrutany. when only the same papers were coming out. 3 4 5 Data Evaluation Analysis and Interpretation Public Presentation 4 . All references of the chosen papers in the first round were verified and relevant paper were collected. the number of returned results. some sites easily supported boolean queried searches and others not. Therefore. Those two libraries are IEEE and ACM. The total number of results were noted. information recorded was the date of search. For example. Every single workshop proceedings and journals were searched for the set of keywords “semantic web user interface”.• IEEE Intelligent Systems (DONE) • IEEE Visualization and Computer Graphics (DONE) • ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) (DONE) • More. listed above. This cycle of verifying the references of chosen papers has repeated until saturation. a plain search of those four keywords without any advanced search features such as boolean queries. Now what qualifies as a relevant paper? The title had to clearly tell that the paper was about the “Semantic Web and User Interface”. the title had to show that it was addressing for of the keys questions. Finally. this paper is addressing. to complete the first round of data collection I did an overall search of the two biggest digital library likely to hold more papers related to the reviewed subject. Then. I took the lowest common denominator approach in order to search all databases in a uniform manner. Papers already collected were of course ignored. and the number of papers actually reflecting defined criteria above and therefore kept. The search was conducted using the same keywords (semantic web user interface) but aimed at collecting papers that did not appear in the above main conferences and journals. and journals listed above were search through databases available through the Internet. That is. that is.