Abstract
Diagrammatic logics have been widely studied since Shin’s seminal work on Venn diagrams in the 1990s. There have been significant theoretical advances alongside empirical work investigating their efficacy with respect to symbolic notations. However, we have little understanding about how to choose between syntactically different diagrams when formulating logical axioms. This paper sets out to provide insight into such choices. By appealing to ontology engineering, we identify commonly required semantic properties that require axiomatization. We systematically identify three different ways of axiomatizing these properties using diagrammatic patterns. One way does not use explicit quantification. The other ways both use explicit quantification but employ different diagrammatic devices to capture the required semantics. We evaluated these competing patterns by conducting an empirical study, collecting performance data. We conclude that avoiding explicit quantification, and representing the information purely diagrammatically, best supports task performance. As a result, users and designers of diagrammatic logics are guided towards avoiding explicit quantification where possible.
Keywords
- Ontologies
- Axioms
- Diagrammatic patterns
- Visualization
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language (2016). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/. Accessed April 2016
Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Chapman, P., Stapleton, G., Rodgers, P., Micallef, L., Blake, A.: Visualizing sets: an empirical comparison of diagram types. In: Dwyer, T., Purchase, H., Delaney, A. (eds.) Diagrams 2014. LNCS, vol. 8578, pp. 146–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Gurr, C.: Effective diagrammatic communication: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic issues. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 10(4), 317–342 (1999)
Horridge, M., Drummond, N., Goodwin, J., Rector, A.L., Stevens, R., Wang, H.: The Manchester OWL syntax. In: OWLed, vol. 216 (2006)
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)
Meulemans, W., Henry Riche, N., Speckmann, B., Alper, B., Alper, B., Dwyer, T.: Kelpfusion: a hybrid set visualization technique. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 19(11), 1846–1858 (2013)
Peirce, C.: Collected Papers, vol. 4. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1933)
Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: OWL pizzas: practical experience of teaching OWL-DL: common errors & common patterns. In: Motta, E., Shadbolt, N.R., Stutt, A., Gibbins, N. (eds.) EKAW 2004. LNCS, vol. 3257, pp. 63–81. Springer, Berlin (2004)
Rector, A.L., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: Designing user interfaces to minimise common errors in ontology development: the CO-ODE and HyOntUse projects. In: Proceedings of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting, vol. 2004, pp. 493–499 (2004)
Schwitter, R., Tilbrook, M.: Controlled natural language meets the semantic web. In: Proceedings of Australasian Language Technology Workshop, vol. 2004, pp. 55–62 (2004)
Shin, S.J.: The Logical Status of Diagrams. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge (1994)
Shin, S.J.: The Iconic Logic of Peirce’s Graphs. Bradford Book, Cambridge (2002)
Stapleton, G., Howse, J., Chapman, P., Delaney, A., Burton, J., Oliver, I.: Formalizing concept diagrams. In: Visual Languages and Computing, pp. 182–187. Knowledge Systems Institute (2013)
Stapleton, G., Howse, J., Taylor, K., Delaney, A., Burton, J., Chapman, P.: Towards diagrammatic ontology patterns. In: 4th Workshop on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns, CEUR, Sydney, Australia, October 2013
Warren, P., Mulholland, P., Collins, T., Motta, E.: The usability of description logics. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8465, pp. 550–564. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Wason, P., Johnson-Laird, P.: Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1972)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Alharbi, E., Howse, J., Stapleton, G., Hamie, A. (2016). Evaluating Diagrammatic Patterns for Ontology Engineering. In: Jamnik, M., Uesaka, Y., Elzer Schwartz, S. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9781. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42333-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42333-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42332-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42333-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)