A Novel Approach to Visualizing and Navigating Ontologies

  • Enrico Motta
  • Paul Mulholland
  • Silvio Peroni
  • Mathieu d’Aquin
  • Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez
  • Victor Mendez
  • Fouad Zablith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7031)


Observational studies in the literature have highlighted low levels of user satisfaction in relation to the support for ontology visualization and exploration provided by current ontology engineering tools. These issues are particularly problematic for non-expert users, who rely on effective tool support to abstract from representational details and to be able to make sense of the contents and the structure of ontologies. To address these issues, we have developed a novel solution for visualizing and navigating ontologies, KC-Viz, which exploits an empirically-validated ontology summarization method, both to provide concise views of large ontologies, and also to support a ‘middle-out’ ontology navigation approach, starting from the most information-rich nodes (key concepts). In this paper we present the main features of KC-Viz and also discuss the encouraging results derived from a preliminary empirical evaluation, which suggest that the use of KC-Viz provides performance advantages to users tackling realistic browsing and visualization tasks. Supplementary data gathered through questionnaires also convey additional interesting findings, including evidence that prior experience in ontology engineering affects not just objective performance in ontology engineering tasks but also subjective views on the usability of ontology engineering tools.


Ontology Visualization Key Concepts Ontology Summarization Ontology Navigation Ontology Engineering Tools Empirical Evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Oren, E., Delbru, R., Catasta, M., Cyganiak, R., Stenzhorn, H., Tummarello, G.: a document-oriented lookup index for open linked data. Int. J. Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 3(1), 37–52 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    d’Aquin, M., Motta, E.: Watson, more than a Semantic Web search engine. Semantic Web 2(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noy, N.F., Tudorache, T., de Coronado, S., Musen, M. A.: Developing Biomedical Ontologies Collaboratively. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, pp. 520–524 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dzbor, M., Motta, E., Buil Aranda, C., Gomez-Perez, J.M., Goerlitz, O., Lewen, H.: Developing ontologies in OWL: An observational study. Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions, Georgia, US (November 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peroni, S., Motta, E., d’Aquin, M.: Identifying Key Concepts in an Ontology, Through the Integration of Cognitive Principles with Statistical and Topological Measures. In: Domingue, J., Anutariya, C. (eds.) ASWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5367, pp. 242–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, T.D., Parsia, B.: CropCircles: Topology Sensitive Visualization of OWL Class Hierarchies. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 695–708. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shneiderman, B.: The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (VL 1996). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shneiderman, B.: Tree Visualization with Tree-Maps: A 2d Space-Filling Approach. ACM Trans. Graph. 11(1), 92–99 (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plaisant, C., Grosjean, J., Bederson, B.B.: Spacetree: Supporting Exploration in Large Node Link Tree, Design Evolution and Empirical Evaluation. In: Proc. of the Intl. Symposium on Information Visualization (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Storey, M.A., Musen, M.A., Silva, J., Best, C., Ernst, N., Fergerson, R., Noy, N.F.: Jambalaya: Interactive visualization to enhance ontology authoring and knowledge acquisition in Protege. In: Workshop on Interactive Tools for Knowledge Capture, K-CAP-2001, Victoria, B.C., Canada (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kriglstein, S., Motschnig-Pitrik, R.: Knoocks: A New Visualization Approach for Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV 2008), pp. 163–168. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C., Giannopoulou, E.: Ontology Visualization Methods - a Survey. ACM Computing Surveys 39(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Souza, K., Dos Santos, A., et al.: Visualization of Ontologies through Hypertrees. In: Proc. of the Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 251–255 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katifori, A., Torou, E., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C.: A Comparative Study of Four Ontology Visualization Techniques in Protege: Experiment Setup and Preliminary Results. In: Proceedings of the 10th Int. Conference on Information Visualisation (IV 2006), London, UK, pp. 417–423 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosch, E.: Principles of Categorization. Cognition and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1978)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Birks, M., Mills, J.: Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pirolli, P., Card, S.K.: Information Foraging. Psychological Review 106(4), 643–675 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  • Paul Mulholland
    • 1
  • Silvio Peroni
    • 2
  • Mathieu d’Aquin
    • 1
  • Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez
    • 3
  • Victor Mendez
    • 3
  • Fouad Zablith
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Intelligent Software Components (iSOCO) S.A.MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations