Towards a Visual Notation for OWL: A Brief Summary of VOWL

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9557)

Abstract

The Web Ontology Language (OWL) has no standardized visual notation in contrast to related modeling languages. However, the visual representation of individual and combined OWL elements as well as complete OWL ontologies can be very useful in many cases. We have developed the Visual Notation for OWL (VOWL) that defines graphical representations for most of the OWL language constructs. In contrast to related work, VOWL aims at a complete and well-specified notation that is easy to understand and implement. This paper reports on the current state of development and briefly describes the main design principles and considerations. At OWLED 2015, we conducted a special session to gather feedback on how to further improve the visual notation and to collect requirements for its future development.

References

  1. 1.
    Alani, H.: TGVizTab: an ontology visualisation extension for Protégé. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Visualizing Information in Knowledge Engineering (VIKE 2004) (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boinski, T., Jaworska, A., Kleczkowski, R., Kunowski, P.: Ontology visualization. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT 2010), pp. 17–20. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosca, A., Bonino, D., Pellegrino, P.: OntoSphere: more than a 3D ontology visualization tool. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Italian Semantic Web Workshop (SWAP 2005). CEUR-WS, vol. 166 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Löffler, 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burch, M., Lohmann, S.: Visualizing the evolution of ontologies: a dynamic graph perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Visualizations and User Interfaces for Ontologies and Linked Data (VOILA 2015). CEUR-WS, vol. 1456, pp. 69–76 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chungoora, T.: Visio template for VOWL (2015). http://ontoweave.com/articles/visio-template-for-vowl/
  7. 7.
    Dasiopoulou, S., Lohmann, S., Codina, J., Wanner, L.: Representing and visualizing text as ontologies: a case from the patent domain. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Visualizations and User Interfaces for Ontologies and Linked Data (VOILA 2015). CEUR-WS, vol. 1456, pp. 83–90 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Djurić, D., Gašević, D., Devedžić, V., Damjanović, V.: A UML profile for OWL ontologies. In: Aßmann, U., Akşit, M., Rensink, A. (eds.) MDAFA 2003. LNCS, vol. 3599, pp. 204–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dudáš, M., Hanzal, T., Svátek, V., Zamazal, O.: OBM2OWL patterns: spotlight on OWL modeling versatility. In: 6th Workshop on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns (WOP 2015). CEUR-WS, vol. 1461 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dudáš, M., Zamazal, O., Svátek, V.: Roadmapping and navigating in the ontology visualization landscape. In: Janowicz, K., Schlobach, S., Lambrix, P., Hyvönen, E. (eds.) EKAW 2014. LNCS, vol. 8876, pp. 137–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eklund, P., Roberts, N., Green, S.: OntoRama: browsing RDF ontologies using a hyperbolic-style browser. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Cyber Worlds (CW 2002), pp. 405–411. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falco, R., Gangemi, A., Peroni, S., Shotton, D., Vitali, F.: Modelling OWL ontologies with graffoo. In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Papadakis, I., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC Satellite Events 2014. LNCS, vol. 8798, pp. 320–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falconer, S.: OntoGraf (2010). http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/OntoGraf
  14. 14.
    Falconer, S.M., Callendar, C., Storey, M.-A.: A visualization service for the semantic web. In: Cimiano, P., Pinto, H.S. (eds.) EKAW 2010. LNCS, vol. 6317, pp. 554–564. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fensel, D., Decker, S., Erdmann, M., Studer, R.: Ontobroker: the very high idea. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS 1998), pp. 131–135. AAAI Press (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Fu, B., Noy, N.F., Storey, M.-A.: Indented tree or graph? a usability study of ontology visualization techniques in the context of class mapping evaluation. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 117–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo, S.S., Chan, C.W.: A tool for ontology visualizaiton in 3D graphics: Onto3DViz. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE 2010), pp. 1–4. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haag, F., Lohmann, S., Negru, S., Ertl, T.: OntoViBe 2: advancing the ontology visualization benchmark. In: Lambrix, P., Hyvönen, E., Blomqvist, E., Presutti, V., Qi, G., Sattler, U., Ding, Y., Ghidini, C. (eds.) EKWA 2014 Satellite Events. LNCS, vol. 8982, pp. 83–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haag, F., Lohmann, S., Siek, S., Ertl, T.: QueryVOWL: a visual query notation for linked data. In: Gandon, F., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9341, pp. 387–402. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25639-9_51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart, L., Emery, P., Colomb, B., Raymond, K., Taraporewalla, S., Chang, D., Ye, Y., Kendall, E., Dutra, M.: OWL full and UML 2.0 compared. Technical report, OMG (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horridge, M.: OWLViz (2010). http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/OWLViz
  23. 23.
    Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S.: The OWL API: a java API for OWL ontologies. Semant. Web 2(1), 11–21 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Hussain, A., Latif, K., Rextin, A., Hayat, A., Alam, M.: Scalable visualization of semantic nets using power-law graphs. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 8(1), 355–367 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO: ISO 9241–110: Ergonomics of Human-system Interaction - Part 110: Dialogue Principles. ISO (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C., Giannopoulou, E.: Ontology visualization methods - a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 39(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keller, R., Eckert, C.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Matrices or node-link diagrams: which visual representation is better for visualising connectivity models? Inf. Vis. 5(1), 62–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kendall, E.F., Bell, R., Burkhart, R., Dutra, M., Wallace, E.K.: Towards a graphical notation for OWL 2. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2009). CEUR-WS, vol. 529 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kiko, K., Atkinson, C.: A detailed comparison of UML and OWL. Technical Report TR-2008-004, University of Mannheim (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krivov, S., Williams, R., Villa, F.: GrOWL: a tool for visualization and editing of OWL ontologies. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 5(2), 54–57 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lanzenberger, M., Sampson, J., Rester, M.: Visualization in ontology tools. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS 2009), pp. 705–711. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liebig, T., Noppens, O.: OntoTrack: a semantic approach for ontology authoring. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 3(2–3), 116–131 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lohmann, S., Link, V., Marbach, E., Negru, S.: WebVOWL: web-based visualization of ontologies. In: Lambrix, P., Hyvönen, E., Blomqvist, E., Presutti, V., Qi, G., Sattler, U., Ding, Y., Ghidini, C. (eds.) EKWA 2014 Satellite Events. LNCS, vol. 8982, pp. 154–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lohmann, S., Negru, S., Haag, F., Ertl, T.: VOWL 2: user-oriented visualization of ontologies. In: Janowicz, K., Schlobach, S., Lambrix, P., Hyvönen, E. (eds.) EKAW 2014. LNCS, vol. 8876, pp. 266–281. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lohmann, S., Negru, S., Haag, F., Ertl, T.: Visualizing ontologies with VOWL. Semantic Web (to appear)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Motta, E., Mulholland, P., Peroni, S., d’Aquin, M., Gomez-Perez, J.M., Mendez, V., Zablith, F.: A novel approach to visualizing and navigating ontologies. 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. 470–486. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Negru, S., Haag, F., Lohmann, S.: Towards a unified visual notation for OWL ontologies: insights from a comparative user study. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Semantic Systems (I-SEMANTICS 2013), pp. 73–80. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Negru, S., Lohmann, S.: A visual notation for the integrated representation of OWL ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2013), pp. 308–315. SciTePress (2013)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Negru, S., Lohmann, S., Haag, F.: VOWL: Visual notation for OWL ontologies (2014). http://purl.org/vowl/
  41. 41.
    OMG: Ontology Definition Metamodel, Version 1.1 (2014). http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.1/
  42. 42.
    Peroni, S.: Graffoo specification (2013). http://www.essepuntato.it/graffoo/specification/current.html
  43. 43.
  44. 44.
    Vatant, B.: GeoNames Ontology (2012). http://www.geonames.org/ontology/
  45. 45.
    Wachsmann, L.: OWLPropViz (2008). http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/OWLPropViz

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Visualization and Interactive Systems (VIS)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceAlexandru Ioan Cuza UniversityIasiRomania

Personalised recommendations