Repairing conceptual relations in ontologies by means of an interactive visual reasoning: Cognitive and design principles

The technologies of visual representation are a great help for understanding items of information and the relations among them, especially, for non-expert users on Knowledge Based Systems, e.g. ontologies, which represent a world that can evolve and, therefore, has to be eventually refined. To ensure a cognitive communication soundness, we must integrate into solutions both, usability for these non-expert users and a logical accuracy on all involved elements. In this paper, the design principles for a tool for the visual repair of anomalies in consistent ontologies is presented. It helps users to obtain an ontological agreement between his mental model of the concepts into discourse domain and the intended model of the ontology (that is supposed to be consistent).

[1]  José A. Alonso-Jiménez,et al.  Foundational challenges in automated semantic Web data and ontology cleaning , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[2]  Martin Grohe,et al.  On first-order topological queries , 2002, TOCL.

[3]  Antonia M. Chávez-González,et al.  Foundational Challenges in Automated Data and Ontology Cleaning in the Semantic Web , 2004 .

[4]  Joaquín Borrego-Díaz,et al.  Agent-mediated shared conceptualizations in tagging services , 2012, Multimedia Tools and Applications.

[5]  Jochen Renz,et al.  Qualitative Spatial Reasoning with Topological Information , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[6]  Reinhold Rauh,et al.  A Cognitive Assessment of Topological Spatial Relations: Results from an Empirical Investigation , 1997, COSIT.

[7]  Joaquín Borrego-Díaz,et al.  Visual Ontology Cleaning: Cognitive Principles and Applicability , 2006, ESWC.

[8]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  On the Complexity of Qualitative Spatial Reasoning: A Maximal Tractable Fragment of the Region Connection Calculus , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Volker Haarslev,et al.  A Logic-based Formalism for Reasoning about Visual Representations , 1999, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[10]  Ralf Möller,et al.  Combining DL-Lite with Spatial Calculi for Feasible Geo-thematic Query Answering , 2012, Description Logics.

[11]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Concept-Based Semantic Difference in Expressive Description Logics , 2012, Description Logics.

[12]  Ramana Rao,et al.  A focus+context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies , 1995, CHI '95.

[13]  Enrico Motta,et al.  KC-Viz: A Novel Approach to Visualizing and Navigating Ontologies , 2010, EKAW.

[14]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Digital Libraries and Web-based Information Systems , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[15]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Dynamic, Automatic, First-Order Ontology repair by Diagnosis of Failed Plan Execution , 2007, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst..

[16]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[17]  Fionn Murtagh,et al.  Interactive Visual User Interfaces: A Survey , 2003, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[18]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Supporting User Tasks through Visualisation of Light-weight Ontologies , 2004, Handbook on Ontologies.

[19]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Ontology-based Information Visualization , 2002, Visualizing the Semantic Web.

[20]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Repairing Unsatisfiable Concepts in OWL Ontologies , 2006, ESWC.

[21]  Kendall Hu.  Experience Sharing with the Ontology Repair System , 2010 .

[22]  Victor Vianu,et al.  Topological Queries in Spatial Databases , 1999, CSL.

[23]  Joaquín Borrego-Díaz,et al.  Mereotopological Analysis of Formal Concepts in Security Ontologies , 2010, CISIS.

[24]  Huajun Chen,et al.  An Interactive Visual Model for Web Ontologies , 2005, KES.

[25]  Anthony G. Cohn,et al.  Representing and Reasoning with Qualitative Spatial Relations About Regions , 1997 .