Advertisement

Semantic Web pp 185-203 | Cite as

Techniques for Ontology Visualization

  • Xiaoshu Wang
  • Jonas S. Almeida

Abstract

Ontology engineering demands clear communication between humans and machines. This process is often impeded by the orientation chasm between their respective language formalisms. This article discusses how to bridge this disconnect by using visual techniques to augment the human comprehension of ontology, which is typically encoded in a machine friendly formalism. Support for ontology visualization comes from research in two interrelated but distinct areas. In ontology visualization techniques (OVT), the focus is on presenting the best visual structure, often interactively, of a targeted ontology for the sake of explorative analysis and comprehension. In visual ontology language (VOL), the focus is on defining the unambiguous, pictorial representation of ontological concepts. Graphs, instead of texts, can then be used in ontology development for the purpose of design, discussion and documentation. There is much contemporary research in the area of OVT, yet the focus directed toward VOL is minimal. By using a fragment of the gene ontology as an example use case, this article surveys the field of OVT by illustrating the different visual effects of various OVT applications. The same gene ontology example is then used to introduce the design and application of a VOL named DLG2, specifically targeted at the RDF-based ontology formalism. The different approach and emphasis between the two types of visual techniques is contrasted.

Key words

ontology ontology engineering visualization visual language Semantic Web 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Gruber T. A translation approach to portable ontologies, Knowledge Acquisition 5, 199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Gruber T. Interview Tom Gruber, SIGSEMIS Bulletin 1, 4–9, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Dori D. ViSWeb-The Visual Semantic Web: unifying human and machine knowledge representations with Object-Process Methodology, The VLDB Journal 13, 120–147, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Berners-Lee T, and Hendler J. Publishing on the semantic web, Nature 410, 1023–4, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Intraub H. Presentation rate and the representation of briefly glimpsed pictures in memory, J Exp Psychol [Hum Learn] 6, 1–12, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Potter M.C. Meaning in visual search, Science 187, 965–6. 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Shepard R.N. Recognition memory for words sentences and pictures, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6, 156–163. 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Nickerson R.S. Short-Term Memory for Complex Meaningful Visual Configurations: a Demonstration of Capacity, Can J Psychol 19, 155–60, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Standing L. Learning 10,000 pictures, Q J Exp Psychol 25, 207–22, 1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Stenning K. and Oberlander J. A Cognitive Theory of Graphical and Linguistic Reasoning: Logic and Implementation, Cognitive Science 19, 97–140 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Krivov S., Williams R., Villa F., and Wu X., “SWVL: A Visualization Model for Languages of the Semantic Web, University of Vermont Computer Science Technical Report CS-06-02” (2006) http://www.cs.uvm.edu/tr/CS-06-07.shtml.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Longwell, http://simile.mit.edu/wiki2/LongwellGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Bosca A., Bonino D., and Pellegrino P. OntoSphere: more than a 3D ontology visualization tool, paper presented at the SWAP 2005, the 2nd Italian Semantic Web Workshop, Trento, Italy, December 14–16 2005.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    OntoSphere 3D, http://ontosphere3d.sourceforge.net/Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Herman I., Melancon G., and Marshall M.S. Graph Visualization and Navigation in Information Visualization: A Survey, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 6, 24–43, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Battista G.D., Eades P., Tamassia R., and Tollis I.G. Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Prentice Hall, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Geroimenko V. and Chen C. Visualizing the Semantic Web. Springer. 2003.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Sugiyama K., Tagawa S., and Toda M. Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical systems., IEEE Trans. Systems,. Man, and Cybernetics 11, 109–125, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Protégé Web Site, http://protege.stanford.edu/Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Storey M.-A., Musen M., Silva J., Best C, Ernst N., Fergerson R., and Noy N. Jambalaya: Interactive visualization to enhance ontology authoring and knowledge acquisition in Protégé paper presented at the Workshop on Interactive Tools for Knowledge Capture (K-CAP-2001), Victoria, B.C. Canada., October 20 2001.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Collaborative Ontology Editor, http://cmap.ihmc.us/coe/Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    IsaViz: A Visual Authoring Tool for RDF, http://www.w3.Org/2001/11/IsaViz/Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Alani H., TGVizTab: An Ontology Visualisation Extension for Protégé, paper presented at the Knowledge Capture (K-Cap’03), Workshop on Visualization Information in Knowledge Engineering., Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    TouchGraph Development site, http://touchgraph.sourceforge.net/Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Eades P. A Heuristic for Graph Drawing, Congressus Numerantium 42, 149–160, 1984.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    GrOWL Website, http://esd.uvm.edu/dmaps/growl/Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    OWL Viz website, http://www.co-ode.org/downloads/owlviz/Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Onto Viz Tab: Visualizing Protégé Ontologies, http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/ontoviz/ontoviz.htmlGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    RDF Gravity (RDF Graph Visualization Tool), http://semweb.salzburgresearch.at/apps/rdf-gravity/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Unified Modeling Language (UML), version 2.0, http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htmGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Sowa J.F. In: Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice. edited by J. F. Sowa, (Ellis Horwood, 1992), 3–52.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Object Process Methodology, http://www.objectprocess.org/Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Baclawski K., Kokar M.M., Kogut P.A., Hart L., Smith J.E., Letkowski J., and Emery P. Extending the Unified Modeling Language for ontology development, Software and Systems Modeling 1, 142–156, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Brockmans S., Volz R., Eberhart A., and Loffler P. Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML, paper presented at the 3rd International SemanticWeb Conference (ISWC2004), Hiroshima, Japan, Nov. 7–11, 2004.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Ontology Definition Metamodel, http://ontology.omg.org/ontology_info.htm#RFIs,RFPsGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Cranefield S. Networked Knowledge Representation and Exchange using UML and RDF, Journal of Digital Information 1, 44, 2001.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Djuric D., Gaševic D., Devedžic V., and Damjanovic V. A UML profile for OWL ontologies, paper presented at the Workshop on Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications, Linköping University, Sweden 2004.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Conzilla http://www.conzilla.orgGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Wang X., Gorlisky R., and Almeida J.S. From XML to RDF-How semantic web technologies will change the design of ‘omic’ standards, Nature Biotechnology 23, 1099–1103, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Relational Databases on the Semantic Web, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDB-RDF.htmlGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    MetaObject Facility, http://www.omg.org/mof/Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Mernik M., Heering J., and Sloane A.M. When and how to develop domain-specific languages., ACM Computing Surveys 37, 316–344, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Berners-Lee T. Mendelsohn N., The Rule of Least Power, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Harel D. and Rumpe B. Meaningful Modeling: What’s the Semantics of “Semantics”?, Computer 37, 64–72, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One, http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Fielding R. T., and Jacobs I., Authoritative Metadata, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Namespaces in XML, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    Wang X., Almeida J.S., DLG2-A Graphical Presentation Language for RDF and OWL (v 2.0), http://www.charlestoncore.org/dlg2/.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    RDF Semantics, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)-XML Graphics for the web, http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaoshu Wang
    • 1
  • Jonas S. Almeida
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and EpedemiologyMedical University of South CarolinaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and Applied MathematicsThe University of TexasHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations