DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09695-7_39
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Some Issues in Personalization of Intelligent Systems: An Activity Theory Approach for Meta Ontology Development

Abstract: Abstract. Personalization of systems has been part of the renaissance of artificial intelligence in many domains. This paper investigates some emerging issues in the area of personalization as they impact systems from different perspectives. Particular attention is given to the relationship between explicitly and implicitly gathered information, information gathered from other personalization settings and with the generation of a personalization information ontology, based on an activity theory approach. Final… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) is not new in the context of AI. However, no studies have presented the crucial role of contradiction (see e.g., Lindblom and Ziemke, 2003 ; Kofod-Petersen and Cassens, 2006 ; O’Leary, 2008 ; Mirolli and Parisi, 2011 ; Huang and Mutlu, 2012 ; Suchan and Bhatt, 2012 ; Dhuieb et al, 2015 ; Maia et al, 2015 ; Emel’yanov et al, 2016 ; Gonçalves et al, 2017 ; Tramonte et al, 2019 ). It is paradoxical to instrumentally accept CHAT “without serious reflection on the complex formation process of its theoretical background” ( Dafermos, 2014 , p. 148).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) is not new in the context of AI. However, no studies have presented the crucial role of contradiction (see e.g., Lindblom and Ziemke, 2003 ; Kofod-Petersen and Cassens, 2006 ; O’Leary, 2008 ; Mirolli and Parisi, 2011 ; Huang and Mutlu, 2012 ; Suchan and Bhatt, 2012 ; Dhuieb et al, 2015 ; Maia et al, 2015 ; Emel’yanov et al, 2016 ; Gonçalves et al, 2017 ; Tramonte et al, 2019 ). It is paradoxical to instrumentally accept CHAT “without serious reflection on the complex formation process of its theoretical background” ( Dafermos, 2014 , p. 148).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%