Advertisement

The Usability of Description Logics

Understanding the Cognitive Difficulties Presented by Description Logics
  • Paul Warren
  • Paul Mulholland
  • Trevor Collins
  • Enrico Motta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8465)

Abstract

Description Logics have been extensively studied from the viewpoint of decidability and computational tractability. Less attention has been given to their usability and the cognitive difficulties they present, in particular for those who are not specialists in logic. This paper reports on a study into the difficulties associated with the most commonly used Description Logic features. Psychological theories are used to take account of these. Whilst most of the features presented no difficulty to participants, the comprehension of some was affected by commonly occurring misconceptions. The paper proposes explanations and remedies for some of these difficulties. In addition, the time to confirm stated inferences was found to depend both on the maximum complexity of the relations involved and the number of steps in the argument.

Keywords

#eswc2014Warren 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuiness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. In: CUP (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, M.I., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychological Science 4(6), 372–378 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodwin, G.P., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Reasoning about relations. Psychological Review 112(2), 468 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halford, G.S., Andrews, G.: The development of deductive reasoning: How important is complexity? Thinking & Reasoning 10(2), 123–145 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horridge, M., Bail, S., Parsia, B., Sattler, U.: The cognitive complexity of OWL justifications. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horridge, M., Drummond, N., Goodwin, J., Rector, A., Stevens, R., Wang, H.H.: The manchester owl syntax. OWL: Experiences and Directions, 10–11 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howse, J., Stapleton, G., Taylor, K., Chapman, P.: Visualizing ontologies: A case study. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 257–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M.: Only Reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language 28(3), 313–330 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M.: Deduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (1991), http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-97828-000 (retrieved)
  10. 10.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., Byrne, R.M., Schaeken, W.: Propositional reasoning by model. Psychological Review 99(3), 418 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C., Giannopoulou, E.: Ontology visualization methods—a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 39(4), 10 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan, M.T., Blomqvist, E.: Ontology design pattern detection-initial method and usage scenarios. In: SEMAPRO 2010, The Fourth International Conference on Advances in Semantic Processing, pp. 19–24 (2010), http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=semapro_2010_1_40_50071 (retrieved)
  13. 13.
    Khemlani, S., Orenes, I., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Negating compound sentences. Naval Research Lab Washington DC Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial in℡Ligence (2012a), http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2012/papers/0110/paper0110.pdf (retrieved)
  14. 14.
    Khemlani, S., Orenes, I., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Negation: A theory of its meaning, representation, and use. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 24(5), 541–559 (2012b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–100 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motik, B., Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Carsten, L.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles, 2nd edn. W3C (2012), http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-profiles-20121211/ (retrieved)
  17. 17.
    Newstead, S.E., Bradon, P., Handley, S.J., Dennis, I., Evans, J.S.B.: Predicting the difficulty of complex logical reasoning problems. Thinking & Reasoning 12(1), 62–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nguyen, Power, Piwek, Williams: Measuring the understandability of deduction rules for OWL. Presented at the First International Workshop on Debugging Ontologies and Ontology Mappings, Galway, Ireland (2012), http://oro.open.ac.uk/34591/ (retrieved )
  19. 19.
    Power, R.: Complexity assumptions in ontology verbalisation. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2010 Conference Short Papers, pp. 132–136 (2010), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1858866 (retrieved)
  20. 20.
    Power, R., Third, A.: Expressing OWL axioms by English sentences: dubious in theory, feasible in practice. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Posters, pp. 1006–1013 (2010), http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1944682 (retrieved)
  21. 21.
    Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wroe, C.: OWL pizzas: Practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: Common errors & common patterns. In: Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web, pp. 63–81. Springer (2004), http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-30202-5_5 (retrieved)
  22. 22.
    Rips, L.J.: Cognitive processes in propositional reasoning. Psychological Review 90(1), 38 (1983)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warren, P.: Ontology Users’ Survey - Summary of Results (KMi Tech Report No. kmi-13-01) (2013), http://kmi.open.ac.uk/publications/pdf/kmi-13-01.pdf (retrieved)
  24. 24.
    Zielinski, T.A., Goodwin, G.P., Halford, G.S.: Complexity of categorical syllogisms: An integration of two metrics. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 22(3), 391–421 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Warren
    • 1
  • Paul Mulholland
    • 1
  • Trevor Collins
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityBuckinghamshireU.K.

Personalised recommendations