[seek-kr-sms] RE: growl+icons
bowers at sdsc.edu
Wed Apr 7 13:03:15 PDT 2004
Serguei Krivov wrote:
> 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?
This may be a bit off topic, but I believe that visualizing and
manipulating an ontology is very much user-dependent.
If we consider a tool that lets a user just browse, and possibly
interactively select concepts/properties of interest, my opinion is to
show the "classified" version. Note that a classifier typically
computes direct super and sub classes (i.e., it generates a lattice: a
partially ordered set where every class has a least-upper bound and a
greatest-lower bound), whereby it is possible to compute all
subsumers/subsumees, etc. Displaying the lattice is more like displaying
the UML object diagram, which I think is much more benefitial to such a
user. (The exception to this is union defs -- not sure how that would
> seek-kr-sms mailing list
> seek-kr-sms at ecoinformatics.org
More information about the Seek-kr-sms