[seek-kr-sms] RE: growl+icons

[Serguei Krivov]

....But the problem is that when you visualize a formula, what you
effectively do is visualize the parse tree of the formula, but not its 
"meaning" in terms of the facts (say of the form C1--R-->C2). So I
think there is some utility in visualizing formulas in graphs, but it
has to be taken with a grain of salt.

To improve the situation one needs a reasoning that can derive some
"consequences graph" from a set of axioms, most notably the class
hierarchy. Then that one would be visualized. 

Visualizing axioms is not bad, but doesn't tell the whole story.

I think that for description logic formulas the textual representation
is still one that should be there as well.

Bertram,
I certainly agree with you - the ontology graph does not tell the whole
story (as it does not intend to). So ontology versus "classified
ontology" (ontology where all possible subclass relations computed with
DL reasoner) will have different graphs. 

However all these statements about graphs can be attributed to formulas
(textual representation) as well. Textual representation does not tell
the whole story, unless it is the output from a DL classifier.

I do not want to say that we do not need textual representation- for me
personally it is more meaningful then a graph. I wanted only to say that
whatever can be said about  graphs can be said about formulas either.
Did I miss anything?

Ciao,
serguei