Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-65dc7cd545-wvgct Total loading time: 0.296 Render date: 2021-07-24T21:56:35.257Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2018

Marek Dudáš
Affiliation:
University of Economics, Prague, W. Churchill Sq. 1938/4, 130 67 Prague 3 - Žižkov, Czech Republic; e-mail: marek.dudas@vse.czsvatek@vse.cz
Steffen Lohmann
Affiliation:
Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems (IAIS), Schloss Birlinghoven, 53757, Sankt Augustin, Germany e-mail: steffen.lohmann@iais.fraunhofer.de
Vojtěch Svátek
Affiliation:
University of Economics, Prague, W. Churchill Sq. 1938/4, 130 67 Prague 3 - Žižkov, Czech Republic; e-mail: marek.dudas@vse.czsvatek@vse.cz
Dmitry Pavlov
Affiliation:
IITMO University, 49 Kronverksky Pr., St. Petersburg, 197101, Russia e-mail: dmitry.pavlov@vismart.biz

Abstract

Various ontology visualization tools using different visualization methods exist and new ones are being developed every year. The goal of this paper is to follow up on previous surveys with an updated classification of ontology visualization methods and a comprehensive survey of available tools. The tools are analyzed for the used visualization methods, interaction techniques and supported ontology constructs. It shows that most of the tools apply two-dimensional node-link visualizations with a focus on class hierarchies. Color and shape are used with little variation, support for constructs introduced with version 2 of the OWL Web Ontology Language is limited, and it often remains vague what tasks and use cases are supported by the visualizations. Major challenges are the limited maturity and usability of many of the tools as well as providing an overview of large ontologies while also showing details on demand. We see a high demand for a universal ontology visualization framework implementing a core set of visual and interactive features that can be extended and customized to respective use cases.

Type
Survey Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Alani, H. 2003. TGVizTab: an ontology visualisation extension for Protege. In K-Cap’03 Workshop on Visualization Information in Knowledge Engineering.Google Scholar
Bach, B., Pietriga, E., Liccardi, I. & Legostaev, G. 2011. OntoTrix: a hybrid visualization for populated ontologies. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, 177-180. ACM.Google Scholar
Bārzdiņš, J., Bārzdiņš, G., Čerāns, K., Liepiņš, R. & Sprog´is, A. 2010. OWLGrEd: a UML style graphical notation and editor for OWL 2. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop OWL: Experience and Directions (OWLED-2010), CEUR WS 614. CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Bertin, J. 1983. Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps, Berg, W.J. (trans). University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Borst, W. N. 1997. Construction of engineering ontologies for knowledge sharing and reuse, Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
Bosca, A., Bonino, D. & Pellegrino, P. 2005. OntoSphere: more than a 3D ontology visualization tool. In SWAP, the 2nd Italian Semantic Web Workshop.Google Scholar
Burch, M. & Lohmann, S. 2015. Visualizing the evolution of ontologies: a dynamic graph perspective. In Ivanova, V., Lambrix, P., Lohmann, S. & Pesquita, C. (eds). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Visualizations and User Interfaces for Ontologies and Linked Data (VOILA 2015), CEUR WS 1456, 69. CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Card, S. K. 2002. Information visualization. In Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, Julie A. Jacko & Andrew Sears (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 544582.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. 2008. Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition 36(6), 10471056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catenazzi, N., Sommaruga, L. & Mazza, R. 2009. User-friendly ontology editing and visualization tools: the OWLeasyViz approach. In 2009 13th International Conference Information Visualisation, 283–288. IEEE.Google Scholar
Ceccaroni, L. & Kendall, E. 2003. A graphical environment for ontology development. In Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 958–959. ACM.Google Scholar
Chung, M., Oh, S., Kim, K., Cho, H. & Cho, H.-K. 2005. Visualizing and authoring owl in ezOWL. In International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, 528–531.Google Scholar
da Silva, I. C. S., Freitas, C. M. D. S. & Santucci, G. 2012. An integrated approach for evaluating the visualization of intensional and extensional levels of ontologies. In Proceedings of the 2012 BELIV Workshop: Beyond Time and Errors-Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization, 2. ACM.Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, J. & Verbeek, F. J. 2009. Node-link and containment methods in ontology visualization. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on OWL: Experiences and Directions-Volume 529, 240–247. CEUR-WS. org.Google Scholar
Dudáš, M., Zamazal, O. & Svátek, V. 2014. Roadmapping and navigating in the ontology visualization landscape. In Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, 137–152. Springer.Google Scholar
Eklund, P., Roberts, N. & Green, S. 2002. OntoRama: browsing rdf ontologies using a hyperbolic-style browser. In Cyber Worlds, 2002. Proceedings. First International Symposium on, 405–411. IEEE.Google Scholar
Falconer, S. 2010. OntoGraf Protege plugin. Place, http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/OntoGraf (accessed 21 March 2014).Google Scholar
Falconer, S. M., Callendar, C. & Storey, M.-A. 2009. Flexviz: visualizing biomedical ontologies on the web. In International Conference on Biomedical Ontology, Software Demonstration.Google Scholar
Fu, B., Noy, N. F. & Storey, M.-A. 2013. Indented tree or graph? A usability study of ontology visualization techniques in the context of class mapping evaluation. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2013, 117–134. Springer.Google Scholar
Fu, B., Noy, N. F. & Storey, M.-A. 2017. Eye tracking the user experience-an evaluation of ontology visualization techniques. Semantic Web 8(1), 2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Colomo-Palacios, R., García, J. & Therón, R. 2012. Towards an ontology modeling tool. A validation in software engineering scenarios. Expert Systems with Applications 39(13), 1146811478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, S. S. & Chan, C. W. 2010. A tool for ontology visualizaiton in 3D graphics: Onto3DViz. In 2010 23rd Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 1–4. IEEE.Google Scholar
Haag, F., Lohmann, S., Negru, S. & Ertl, T. 2014. OntoViBe: an ontology visualization benchmark. In International Workshop on Visualizations and User Interfaces for Knowledge Engineering and Linked Data Analytics (VISUAL 2014), 1299, 14–27.Google Scholar
Hartung, M., Groß, A. & Rahm, E. 2012. CODEX: exploration of semantic changes between ontology versions. Bioinformatics 28(6), 895896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, P., Eskridge, T. C., Saavedra, R., Reichherzer, T., Mehrotra, M. & Bobrovnikoff, D. 2005. Collaborative knowledge capture in ontologies. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Capture, 99–106. ACM.Google Scholar
Herman, I., Melancon, G. & Marshall, M. S. 2000. Graph visualization and navigation in information visualization: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 6(1), 2443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holten, D. 2006. Hierarchical edge bundles: visualization of adjacency relations in hierarchical data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12(5), 741748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hop, W., de Ridder, S., Frasincar, F. & Hogenboom, F. 2012. Using hierarchical edge bundles to visualize complex ontologies in glow. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 304–311. ACM.Google Scholar
Howse, J., Stapleton, G., Taylor, K. & Chapman, P. 2011. Visualizing ontologies: a case study. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2011, 257–272. Springer.Google Scholar
Hussain, A., Latif, K., Rextin, A. T., Hayat, A. & Alam, M. 2014. Scalable visualization of semantic nets using power-law graphs. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences 8(1), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiao, Z. L., Liu, Q., Li, Y.-F., Marriott, K., Wybrow, M. 2013. Visualization of large ontologies with landmarks. In GRAPP/IVAPP, 461–470. SciTePress.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. & Shneiderman, B. 1991. Tree-maps: a space-filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Visualization'91, 284–291. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C. & Giannopoulou, E. 2007. Ontology visualization methods a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 39(4), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katifori, A., Torou, E., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G. & Vassilakis, C. 2006. A comparative study of four ontology visualization techniques in protege: experiment setup and preliminary results. In Tenth International Conference on Information Visualization, 2006. IV 2006, 417–423. IEEE.Google Scholar
Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R. W., Noy, N. F. & Musen, M. A. 2004. The Protege OWL plugin: an open development environment for semantic web applications. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2004, 229–243. Springer.Google Scholar
Kriglstein, S. & Wallner, G. 2010. Knoocks – a visualization approach for OWL Lite ontologies. In 2010 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS), 950–955. IEEE.Google Scholar
Krivov, S., Williams, R. & Villa, F. 2007. GrOWL: A tool for visualization and editing of OWL ontologies. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5(2), 5457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrix, P., Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V. & Anslow, C. 2016. Visualization for ontology evolution. In Ivanova, V., Lambrix, P., Lohmann, S. & Pesquita, C. (eds). Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Visualization and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data (VOILA 2016), CEUR WS 1704 , 54–67. CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Lamping, J., Rao, R. & Pirolli, P. 1995. A focus+context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 401–408. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Lanzenberger, M., Sampson, J. & Rester, M. 2009. Visualization in ontology tools. In Barolli, L., Xhafa, F. & Hsu, H. (eds). 2009 International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (CISIS), 705–711. IEEE CS.Google Scholar
Liebig, T. & Noppens, O. 2005. OntoTrack: a semantic approach for ontology authoring. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(2), 116131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, S., Link, V., Marbach, E. & Negru, S. 2015. WebVOWL: web-based visualization of ontologies. In Proceedings of EKAW 2014 Satellite Events, LNAI 8982, 154–158. Springer.Google Scholar
Lohmann, S., Negru, S., Haag, F. & Ertl, T. 2016. Visualizing ontologies with VOWL. Semantic Web 7(4), 399419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motta, E., Mulholland, P., Peroni, S., dAquin, M., Gomez-Perez, J. M., Mendez, V. & Zablith, F. 2011. A novel approach to visualizing and navigating ontologies. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2011, 470–486. Springer.Google Scholar
Mouromtsev, D., Pavlov, D., Emelyanov, Y., Morozov, A., Razdyakonov, D. & Galkin, M. 2015. The simple, web-based tool for visualization and sharing of semantic data and ontologies. In ISWC 2015 Posters & Demonstrations Track. CEUR.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. 1984. Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, C., Geller, J., Musen, M. A. & Perl, Y. 2017. Real time summarization and visualization of ontology change in protege. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Visualization and Interaction for Ontologies and Linked Data (ISWC 2017), CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1947, 75–86. CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. C. 2007. State of the art: coordinated & multiple views in exploratory visualization. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization, CMV’07, 61–71, Washington, DC. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Sarkar, M. & Brown, M. H. 1992. Graphical fisheye views of graphs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 83–91. ACM.Google Scholar
Schaaf, M., Jahn, F., Tahar, K., Kücherer, C., Winter, A. & Paech, B. 2016. Visualization of large ontologies in university education from a tool point of view. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 228, 349.Google ScholarPubMed
Shneiderman, B. 1996. The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1996 Proceedings, 336–343. IEEE, ACM.Google Scholar
Somasundaram, R. 2007. OntoSELF: a 3D Ontology Visualization Tool. PhD thesis, Miami University.Google Scholar
Storey, M.-A., Musen, M., Silva, J., Best, C., Ernst, N., Fergerson, R. & Noy, N. 2001. Jambalaya: interactive visualization to enhance ontology authoring and knowledge acquisition in Protege. In Workshop on Interactive Tools for Knowledge Capture (K-CAP-2001), 93.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. 1986. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Von Landesberger, T., Kuijper, A., Schreck, T., Kohlhammer, J., van Wijk, J. J., Fekete, J.-D. & Fellner, D. W. 2011. Visual analysis of large graphs: state-of-the-art and future research challenges. In Computer Graphics Forum, 30, 1719–1749. Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
Wang, T. D. & Parsia, B. 2006. Cropcircles: topology sensitive visualization of owl class hierarchies. In International Semantic Web Conference, 4273, 695–708. Springer.Google Scholar
Ware, C. 2012. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Weiten, M. 2009. Ontostudio® as a ontology engineering environment. In Semantic Knowledge Management, 51–60. Springer.Google Scholar
Wielemaker, J., Schreiber, G. & Wielinga, B. 2005. Using triples for implementation: the Triple20 ontology-manipulation tool. In The Semantic Web-ISWC 2005, 773–785. Springer.Google Scholar
Wiens, V., Lohmann, S. & Auer, S. 2017. Semantic zooming for ontology graph visualizations. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Capture Conference (K-CAP’17), 4:1–4:8. ACM.Google Scholar
21
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Ontology visualization methods and tools: a survey of the state of the art
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *