W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2013

Re: SW Graphical Notation

From: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:36:08 -0300
Cc: Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AEDB5E24-8F41-4062-A81C-A3CA09E66F84@inf.puc-rio.br>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Dear all,
I agree with Peter's statement. Regarding graphical notations, I would like to call everybody's attention to the work of Daniel Moody [1], an excellent work setting the foundations of why, what and how graphical notations can be helpful. It should certainly be taken into account if such a notation should be proposed, but I also agree that at the current stage it is still more a research problem than a standardization problem.


[1] Daniel L. Moody: The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(6): 756-779 (2009). Pdf at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05353439.

On Jun 28, 2013, at 01:39  - 28/06/13, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of having a common/accepted visual representation of an ontology.  Would this representation help in standardizing ontologies?  Would it help in transmitting ontologies?  Would tools be required to consume it?
> 
> This is not to say that there is not a pressing need for more ontology visualization tools.  On the contrary, every time I look at ontologies of any size, I become depressed at how bad ontology visualization tools are.  (Of course, what I want is to see just what I need to see, arranged in just the way that makes it easiest for me to understand aspects of the ontology that I understand.)  This seems to point out a need for research, not standardization, however.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Renato Iannella <ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> RDF/OWL have well-defined technical encodings (xml, turtle, etc) but there is no such common/accepted representation for a graphical notation.
>> That is, a visual representation of an ontology that captures (graphically) all the semantics of RDF/OWL.
>> 
>> I have collected a few examples of various graphical notations here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/SemWebGraphicalNotation
>> 
>> Is there any interest from members of the SWIG to look at this in more detail, and potentially propose such graphical notation for RDF/OWL?
>> (This could be via this IG or a new Community Group.)
>> 
>> Cheers...
>> Renato Iannella
>> Semantic Identity
>> http://semanticidentity.com
>> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206
>> 
> 

[]s
D


Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 17:36:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:33 UTC