Constructing Conceptual Knowledge Artefacts: Activity Patterns in the Ontology Authoring Process

Ontologies are complex knowledge representation artefacts used widely across biomedical, media and industrial domains. They are used for defining terminologies and providing metadata, especially for linked open data, and as such their use is rapidly increasing, but so far development tools have not benefited from empirical research into the ontology authoring process. This paper presents the results of a study that identifies common activity patterns through analysis of eye-tracking data and the event logs of the popular authoring tool, Protégé. Informed by the activity patterns discovered, we propose design guidelines for bulk editing, efficient reasoning and increased situational awareness. Methodological implications go beyond the remit of knowledge artefacts: we establish a method for studying the usability of software designed for highly specialised complex domains.

[1]  V. R. Benjamins,et al.  WonderTools? A comparative study of ontological engineering tools , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  Hao Wang,et al.  Analysis of User Editing Patterns in Ontology Development Projects , 2013, OTM Conferences.

[3]  Rachel K. E. Bellamy,et al.  The whats and hows of programmers' foraging diets , 2013, CHI.

[4]  Enrico Motta,et al.  Developing Ontologies in OWL: an Observational Study , 2006, OWLED.

[5]  Rob Procter,et al.  Distributed ontology building as practical work , 2011, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  David Martin,et al.  GOToolBox: functional analysis of gene datasets based on Gene Ontology , 2004, Genome Biology.

[7]  Robert Stevens,et al.  OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors & Common Patterns , 2004, EKAW.

[8]  Kent A. Spackman,et al.  Compositional concept representation using SNOMED: towards further convergence of clinical terminologies , 1998, AMIA.

[9]  Harold Thimbleby,et al.  Usability analysis with Markov models , 2001, TCHI.

[10]  Andreas Abecker,et al.  Ontologies and the Semantic Web , 2011, Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies.

[11]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Categorising logical differences between OWL ontologies , 2011, CIKM '11.

[12]  Jacob O. Wobbrock,et al.  Understanding usability practices in complex domains , 2010, CHI.

[13]  Tim Berners-Lee,et al.  Linked Data - The Story So Far , 2009, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst..

[14]  Enrico Motta,et al.  The Usability of Description Logics - Understanding the Cognitive Difficulties Presented by Description Logics , 2014, ESWC.

[15]  Robert Stevens,et al.  Protégé4US: Harvesting Ontology Authoring Data with Protégé , 2014, ESWC.

[16]  Robert Stevens,et al.  Design insights for the next wave ontology authoring tools , 2014, CHI.

[17]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[18]  Samantha Bail,et al.  The Cognitive Complexity of OWL Justifications , 2011, Description Logics.

[19]  Jorge S. Cardoso.  The Semantic Web Vision: Where Are We? , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[20]  David R. Karger,et al.  End-users publishing structured information on the web: an observational study of what, why, and how , 2014, CHI.

[21]  Ban Al-Ani,et al.  Homebrew databases: complexities of everyday information management in nonprofit organizations , 2011, CHI.

[22]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Usability Issues in Knowledge Representation Systems , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[23]  Jesualdo Tomás Fernández-Breis,et al.  Lexical Characterization and Analysis of the BioPortal Ontologies , 2013, AIME.

[24]  Ali Khalili,et al.  User interfaces for semantic authoring of textual content: A systematic literature review , 2013, J. Web Semant..

[25]  Caroline Jay,et al.  Overcoming the pitfalls of ontology authoring: Strategies and implications for tool design , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Patrick Lambrix,et al.  Evaluation of ontology development tools for bioinformatics , 2003, Bioinform..