UML Style Graphical Notation and Editor for OWL 2

  • Jānis Bārzdiņš
  • Guntis Bārzdiņš
  • Kārlis Čerāns
  • Renārs Liepiņš
  • Artūrs Sproģis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 64)

Abstract

OWL is becoming the most widely used knowledge representation language. It has several textual notations but no standard graphical notation apart from verbose ODM UML. We propose an extension to UML class diagrams (heavyweight extension) that allows a compact OWL visualization. The compactness is achieved through the native power of UML class diagrams extended with optional Manchester encoding for class expressions thus largely eliminating the need for explicit anonymous class visualization. To use UML class diagram notation we had to modify its semantics to support Open World Assumption that is central to OWL. We have implemented the proposed compact visualization for OWL 2 in a UML style graphical editor. The editor contains a rich set of graphical layout algorithms for automatic ontology visualization, search facilities, zooming, graphical refactoring and interoperability with Protégé 4.

Keywords

OWL UML class diagram visualization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure, version 2.1. OMG Specification ptc/06-04-03, http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-04-03.pdf
  5. 5.
    Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.1. OMG Specification ptc/06-04-02, http://www.omg.org/docs/ptc/06-04-02.pdf
  6. 6.
    Ontology Definition Metamodel. OMG Document formal/2009-05-01, http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Loffler, P.: Visual Modeling of OWL DL Ontologies Using UML. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. W3C Recomendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/
  11. 11.
    OWL Functional Syntax, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Kendall, E., Bell, R., Burkart, R., Dutra, M., Wallace, E.: Towards a Graphical Notation for OWL 2. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Virginia, USA, vol. 529 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barzdins, J., Rencis, E., Kozlovics, S.: The Transformation-Driven Architecture. In: Proc. of 8th OOPSLA Workshop on Domain-Specific Modeling, Nashville, USA, pp. 60–63 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barzdins, J., Cerans, K., Kozlovics, S., Rencis, E., Zarins, A.: A Graph Diagram Engine for the Transformation-Driven Architecture. In: Proc. of 4th International Workshop of Model-Driven Development of Advanced User Interfaces, Florida, USA, pp. 29–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: A Semantic Web Primer, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Byelas, H.,, T.: Visualization of Areas of Interest in Software Architecture Diagrams. In: SOFTVIS 2006, Brighton, United Kingdom, September 04-06, pp. 105–114 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jānis Bārzdiņš
    • 1
  • Guntis Bārzdiņš
    • 1
  • Kārlis Čerāns
    • 1
  • Renārs Liepiņš
    • 1
  • Artūrs Sproģis
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations