Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Visualising the effects of ontology changes and studying their understanding with ChImp

Published: 01 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Due to the Semantic Web’s decentralised nature, ontology engineers rarely know all applications that leverage their ontology. Consequently, they are unaware of the full extent of possible consequences that changes might cause to the ontology. Our goal is to lessen the gap between ontology engineers and users by investigating ontology engineers’ understanding of ontology changes’ impact at editing time. Hence, this paper introduces the Protégé plugin ChImp which we use to reach our goal. We elicited requirements for ChImp through a questionnaire with ontology engineers. We then developed ChImp according to these requirements and it displays all changes of a given session and provides selected information on said changes and their effects. For each change, it computes a number of metrics on both the ontology and its materialisation. It displays those metrics on both the originally loaded ontology at the beginning of the editing session and the current state to help ontology engineers understand the impact of their changes.
We investigated the informativeness of materialisation impact measures, the meaning of severe impact, and also the usefulness of ChImp in an online user study with 36 ontology engineers. We asked the participants to solve two ontology engineering tasks – with and without ChImp (assigned in random order) – and answer in-depth questions about the applied changes as well as the materialisation impact measures. We found that ChImp increased the participants’ understanding of change effects and that they felt better informed. Answers also suggest that the proposed measures were useful and informative. We also learned that the participants consider different outcomes of changes severe, but most would define severity based on the amount of changes to the materialisation compared to its size. The participants also acknowledged the importance of quantifying the impact of changes and that the study will affect their approach of editing ontologies.

References

[1]
Zablith Fouad, Antoniou Grigoris, d’Aquin Mathieu, Flouris Giorgos, Kondylakis Haridimos, Motta Enrico, Plexousakis Dimitris, Sabou Marta, Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey, Knowl. Eng. Rev. 30 (1) (2015) 45–75,.
[2]
Stojanovic Ljiljana, Maedche Alexander, Motik Boris, Stojanovic Nenad, User-driven ontology evolution management, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW), Vol. 2473, Springer, 2002, pp. 285–300,.
[3]
Berners-Lee Tim, Hendler James, Lassila Ora, The semantic web, Sci. Am. 284 (5) (2001) 34–43.
[4]
Schekotihin Konstantin, Rodler Patrick, Schmid Wolfgang, Horridge Matthew, Tudorache Tania, Test-driven ontology development in protégé, in: ICBO, in: CEUR workshop proceedings, vol. 2285, CEUR-WS.org, 2018.
[5]
Dubey Mohnish, Banerjee Debayan, Abdelkawi Abdelrahman, Lehmann Jens, Lc-QuAD 2.0: A large dataset for complex question answering over wikidata and DBpedia, in: ISWC (2), in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11779, Springer, 2019, pp. 69–78,.
[6]
Vrandecic Denny, Krötzsch Markus, Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase, Commun. ACM 57 (10) (2014) 78–85,.
[7]
Lehmann Jens, Isele Robert, Jakob Max, Jentzsch Anja, Kontokostas Dimitris, Mendes Pablo N., Hellmann Sebastian, Morsey Mohamed, van Kleef Patrick, Auer Sören, Bizer Christian, DBpedia - A large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia, Semant. Web 6 (2) (2015) 167–195,.
[8]
Musen Mark A., The protégé project: a look back and a look forward, AI Matters 1 (4) (2015) 4–12,.
[9]
Pernisch Romana, Serbak Mirko, Dell’ Aglio Daniele, Bernstein Abraham, ChImp: Visualizing ontology changes and their impact in protégé, in: Proceedings of the Visualization and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data, Co-Located with ISWC 2020, CEUR-WS.org, 2020.
[10]
Groß Anika, Hartung Michael, Prüfer Kay, Kelso Janet, Rahm Erhard, Impact of ontology evolution on functional analyses, Bioinformatics 28 (20) (2012) 2671–2677,.
[11]
Gottron Thomas, Gottron Christian, Perplexity of index models over evolving linked data, in: Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 8465, Springer, 2014, pp. 161–175,.
[12]
dos Reis Julio Cesar, Pruski Cédric, Da Silveira Marcos, Reynaud-Delaître Chantal, Understanding semantic mapping evolution by observing changes in biomedical ontologies, J. Biomed. Inform. 47 (2014) 71–82,.
[13]
Cardoso Silvio Domingos, Pruski Cédric, Silveira Marcos Da, Lin Ying-Chi, Groß Anika, Rahm Erhard, Reynaud-Delaître Chantal, Leveraging the impact of ontology evolution on semantic annotations, in: Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management - 20th International Conference, EKAW 2016, Bologna, Italy, November 19-23, 2016, Proceedings, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10024, 2016, pp. 68–82,.
[14]
Vigo Markel, Bail Samantha, Jay Caroline, Stevens Robert, Overcoming the pitfalls of ontology authoring: Strategies and implications for tool design, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72 (12) (2014) 835–845,.
[15]
Mohsen Wa’el, Aref Mostafa, ElBahnasy Khaled, Scaled scrum framework for cooperative domain ontology evolution, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers of Educational Technologies (ICFET), ACM, 2020, pp. 135–143,.
[16]
Matentzoglu Nicolas, Vigo Markel, Jay Caroline, Stevens Robert, Inference Inspector: Improving the verification of ontology authoring actions, J. Web Semant. 49 (2018) 1–15,.
[17]
Leenheer Pieter De, Debruyne Christophe, DOGMA-MESS: A tool for fact-oriented collaborative ontology evolution, in: OTM Workshops, Vol. 5333, Springer, 2008, pp. 797–806,.
[18]
Denaux Ronald, Thakker Dhavalkumar, Dimitrova Vania, Cohn Anthony G., Interactive semantic feedback for intuitive ontology authoring, in: Proceedings of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications FOIS, 239, IOS Press, 2012, pp. 160–173,.
[19]
Noy Natalya Fridman, Klein Michel C.A., Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution, Knowl. Inf. Syst. 6 (4) (2004) 428–440,.
[20]
Gonçalves Rafael S., Parsia Bijan, Sattler Ulrike, Categorising logical differences between OWL ontologies, in: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), ACM, 2011, pp. 1541–1546,.
[21]
Qawasmeh Omar, Lefrançois Maxime, Zimmermann Antoine, Maret Pierre, Observing the impact and adaptation to the evolution of an imported ontology, in: IC3K 2019-11ht International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Enginnering and Knowledge Management, 2019, p. 11p,.
[22]
Osborne Francesco, Motta Enrico, Pragmatic ontology evolution: Reconciling user requirements and application performance, in: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), in: LNCS, vol. 11136, Springer, 2018, pp. 495–512,.
[23]
Pernischová Romana, Dell’Aglio Daniele, Horridge Matthew, Baumgartner Matthias, Bernstein Abraham, Toward predicting impact of changes in evolving knowledge graphs, in: Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) Satellites, in: CEUR workshop proceedings, 2456, CEUR-WS.org, 2019, pp. 137–140.
[24]
Pernisch Romana, Dell’Aglio Daniele, Bernstein Abraham, Beware of the hierarchy - an analysis of ontology evolution and the materialisation impact for biomedical ontologies, J. Web Semant. (2021),.
[25]
Katifori Akrivi, Halatsis Constantin, Lepouras George, Vassilakis Costas, Giannopoulou Eugenia G., Ontology visualization methods - a survey, ACM Comput. Surv. 39 (4) (2007) 10,.
[26]
Dudás Marek, Lohmann Steffen, Svátek Vojtech, Pavlov Dmitry, Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art, Knowl. Eng. Rev. 33 (2018),.
[27]
Gatens William, Konev Boris, Ludwig Michel, Wolter Frank, Versioning based on logical difference for lightweight description logic terminologies, Proc. ARCOE (2011).
[28]
Kremen Petr, Smid Marek, Kouba Zdenek, OWLDiff: A practical tool for comparison and merge of OWL ontologies, in: DEXA Workshops, IEEE Computer Society, 2011, pp. 229–233,.
[29]
Falconer Sean M., Tudorache Tania, Noy Natalya Fridman, An analysis of collaborative patterns in large-scale ontology development projects, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP), ACM, 2011, pp. 25–32,.
[32]
Liu William, Tudorache Tania, Redmond Timothy, Changes tab, 2008, https://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Changes_Tab.
[33]
Davies Kieren, Keet C. Maria, Lawrynowicz Agnieszka, More effective ontology authoring with test-driven development and the TDDonto2 tool, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 28 (07) (2019) 1950023:1–1950023:25,.
[34]
Matentzoglu Nicolas, Vigo Markel, Jay Caroline, Stevens Robert, Making entailment set changes explicit improves the understanding of consequences of ontology authoring actions, in: Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Springer, 2016, pp. 432–446,.
[35]
Alrabbaa Christian, Baader Franz, Dachselt Raimund, Flemisch Tamara, Koopmann Patrick, Visualising proofs and the modular structure of ontologies to support ontology repair, in: Proceedings of the 33rd International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2020) co-located with the 17th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2020), in: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2663, CEUR-WS.org, 2020.
[36]
Dehmer Matthias, Emmert-Streib Frank, Shi Yongtang, Interrelations of graph distance measures based on topological indices, PLoS One 9 (4) (2014),.
[37]
Glimm Birte, Horrocks Ian, Motik Boris, Stoilos Giorgos, Wang Zhe, HermiT: an OWL 2 reasoner, J. Automat. Reason. 53 (3) (2014) 245–269,.
[38]
Duque-Ramos Astrid, Fernández-Breis Jesualdo Tomás, Iniesta Miguela, Dumontier Michel, Aranguren Mikel Egaña, Schulz Stefan, Aussenac-Gilles Nathalie, Stevens Robert, Evaluation of the OQuaRE framework for ontology quality, Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (7) (2013) 2696–2703,.
[39]
Gangemi Aldo, Catenacci Carola, Ciaramita Massimiliano, Lehmann Jos, Modelling ontology evaluation and validation, in: The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 3rd European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2006, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4011, Springer, 2006, pp. 140–154,.
[40]
Tartir Samir, Arpinar I. Budak, Sheth Amit P., Ontological evaluation and validation, in: Theory and Applications of Ontology: Computer Applications, Springer, 2010, pp. 115–130,.
[41]
Djedidi Rim, Aufaure Marie-Aude, ONTO-EVO A L an ontology evolution approach guided by pattern modeling and quality evaluation, in: International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, 2010, pp. 286–305,.
[42]
Lantow Birger, Sandkuhl Kurt, An analysis of applicability using quality metrics for ontologies on ontology design patterns, Intell. Syst. Account. Financ. Manage. 22 (1) (2015) 81–99,.
[43]
Tempich Christoph, Volz Raphael, Towards a benchmark for semantic web reasoners - an analysis of the daml ontology library, in: EON2003, Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools held at the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference ISWC 2003, in: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 87, CEUR-WS.org, 2003.
[44]
Horridge Matthew, Bechhofer Sean, The OWL API: A java API for OWL ontologies, Semant. Web 2 (1) (2011) 11–21,.
[45]
Erdmann Michael, Waterfeld Walter, Overview of the NeOn toolkit, in: Ontology Engineering in a Networked World, Springer, 2012, pp. 281–301,.
[46]
Rauterberg Matthias, Benutzungs-orientierte benchmark-tests: eine methode zur benutzerbeteiligung bei standardsoftware-entwicklungen, in: Software Ergonomie (German Chapter of ACM), 1991, pp. 96–107,.
[47]
Association American Psychological, Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, seventh ed., American Psychological Association, 2000.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Do you catch my drift? On the usage of embedding methods to measure concept shift in knowledge graphsProceedings of the 12th Knowledge Capture Conference 202310.1145/3587259.3627555(70-74)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
  • (2023)Descriptive Comparison of Visual Ontology Change Summarisation MethodsThe Semantic Web: ESWC 2023 Satellite Events10.1007/978-3-031-43458-7_10(54-58)Online publication date: 28-May-2023

Index Terms

  1. Visualising the effects of ontology changes and studying their understanding with ChImp
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web
          Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web  Volume 74, Issue C
          Oct 2022
          153 pages

          Publisher

          Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

          Netherlands

          Publication History

          Published: 01 October 2022

          Author Tags

          1. Ontology editing
          2. Materialisation
          3. User study
          4. Ontology evolution impact

          Qualifiers

          • Research-article

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
          Reflects downloads up to 12 Feb 2025

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2023)Do you catch my drift? On the usage of embedding methods to measure concept shift in knowledge graphsProceedings of the 12th Knowledge Capture Conference 202310.1145/3587259.3627555(70-74)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2023
          • (2023)Descriptive Comparison of Visual Ontology Change Summarisation MethodsThe Semantic Web: ESWC 2023 Satellite Events10.1007/978-3-031-43458-7_10(54-58)Online publication date: 28-May-2023

          View Options

          View options

          Figures

          Tables

          Media

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media