Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
A study on development of cognitive support features in recent ontology visualization tools
Ramakrishnan S., Vijayan A. Artificial Intelligence Review41 (4):595-623,2014.Type:Article
Date Reviewed: Jun 9 2014

Drawing hierarchical structures in a way that clearly represents the information they carry is a centuries-old problem that artists have dealt with. Today, the widespread use of ontologies requires this problem to be viewed from a new perspective: not only is it a drawing problem, but it requires tools for exploring, changing, and querying. Different tools are available today, and choosing which to use is not a trivial task.

As indicated by the title, this paper is a broad survey of the ontology visualization problem. A major part of the paper presents the available tools for the visualization of ontologies. Twenty-four are illustrated, and some are compared in a table. They use as visualization methods indented lists, node-link trees, and zoom and focus; moreover, they offer tools for building and querying ontologies. There is no mention of cognitive studies to put these features into perspective.

The authors also wanted to determine the best features for users with basic domain knowledge, using ontologies as “browsing aids.” Three tools, related to Protégé, were selected: DLQuery (a tool that facilitates the definition and checking of classes), OntoGraf (a tool offering various layouts), and OWL2Query (a system that facilitates queries in SPARQL). The authors briefly describe the design of an experiment for evaluating user satisfaction with the cognitive support provided by the three systems in using an ontology containing 15 classes and about 2,600 instances. A group of people with minimal training received a set of five queries to answer from the ontology. The results are shown in tables showing TaskLoadIndex (TLX) and time needed. People were able to more easily and effectively use OntoGraf. Why? Which features make it so user friendly? The analysis stops here.

As the authors conclude, these results do not say which system is the best. The value and the acceptance of a tool, we may conclude, depend on the size of the ontology, the previous knowledge of the user, the stability of the domain knowledge, and the task to accomplish; these are too many parameters for a simple experiment.

Reviewer:  G. Gini Review #: CR142370 (1409-0788)
Bookmark and Share
  Featured Reviewer  
 
Ontologies (I.2.4 ... )
 
 
Semantic Networks (I.2.4 ... )
 
 
Semantic Web (H.3.4 ... )
 
 
Information Search And Retrieval (H.3.3 )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Ontologies": Date
Cohesion and coupling metrics for ontology modules
Oh S., Yeom H., Ahn J. Information Technology and Management 12(2): 81-96, 2011. Type: Article
Dec 16 2011
Ontology-based application integration
Paulheim H., Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, New York, NY, 2011.  286, Type: Book (978-1-461414-29-2)
May 24 2012
SMOL: a systemic methodology for ontology learning from heterogeneous sources
Gil R., Martin-Bautista M. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 42(3): 415-455, 2014. Type: Article
Oct 3 2014
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy