OntoRama: Browsing an RDF Ontology using a Hyperbolic-like Browser
P. Eklund, N. Roberts, and S. Green. First International Symposium on CyberWorlds (CW2002), page 405--411. Tokyo, IEEE, (2002)
Abstract
This paper presents a Java-based hyperbolic-style browser designed to render RDF files as structured ontological maps. The program was motivated by the need to browse the content of a web-accessible ontology server: WEBKB-2. The ontology server contains descriptions of over 74,500 object types derived from the WORDNET 1.7 lexical database and can be accessed using RDF syntax. Such a structure creates complications for hyperbolic-style displays. In WEBKB-2 there are 140 stable ontology link types and a hyperbolic display needs to filter and iconify the view so different link relations can be distinguished in multi-link views. Our browsing tool, ONTORAMA, is therefore motivated by two possibly interfering aims: the first to display up to 10 times the number of nodes in a hyperbolic style view than using a conventional graphics display; secondly, to render the ontology with multiple links comprehensible in that view.
First International Symposium on CyberWorlds (CW2002)
year
2002
pages
405--411
publisher
IEEE
comment
based on ontobroker work - "While our research focus has been in experimenting with the cognitive adequacy of various layout options, forcedirected radial layout and alternatively hyperbolic geometric layouts, ONTORAMA has emerged as a practical tool for viewing ontologies described in RDF. It is for this reason that it is worthy of reporting. The project has also experimented with a Java3D and Macromedia Flash implementations which give rise to experiments with a 3D hyperbolic view 6, however the use of Java3D is motivated by the improved rendering of the 2D objects and the Flash implementation by a smaller application footprint and speed." - significant challenge for Ontorama and other hyperbolic browsers is that not all ontologies are strictly hierarchical according to the standard inheritance hierarchy (is-a). This means their approach must somehow handle the case where these relationships break in order to display all the nodes. - hyperbolic view has associated disadvantage of limited screen space, eg. the surface of a sphere, whereas the permissible screen space for a tree layout is infinite (just keep extending the page). In practice this distinction is not so large though as we are still constrained by the nodes per inch resolution. Is there an empirical limit on how many nodes one person can grasp at once? interesting case study.
%0 Conference Paper
%1 eklund02
%A Eklund, Peter
%A Roberts, Natalyia
%A Green, Steve P.
%B First International Symposium on CyberWorlds (CW2002)
%C Tokyo
%D 2002
%I IEEE
%K engineering information knowledge visualization
%P 405--411
%T OntoRama: Browsing an RDF Ontology using a Hyperbolic-like Browser
%U http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~nernst/papers/eklund-ontorama.pdf
%X This paper presents a Java-based hyperbolic-style browser designed to render RDF files as structured ontological maps. The program was motivated by the need to browse the content of a web-accessible ontology server: WEBKB-2. The ontology server contains descriptions of over 74,500 object types derived from the WORDNET 1.7 lexical database and can be accessed using RDF syntax. Such a structure creates complications for hyperbolic-style displays. In WEBKB-2 there are 140 stable ontology link types and a hyperbolic display needs to filter and iconify the view so different link relations can be distinguished in multi-link views. Our browsing tool, ONTORAMA, is therefore motivated by two possibly interfering aims: the first to display up to 10 times the number of nodes in a hyperbolic style view than using a conventional graphics display; secondly, to render the ontology with multiple links comprehensible in that view.
@inproceedings{eklund02,
abstract = {This paper presents a Java-based hyperbolic-style browser designed to render RDF files as structured ontological maps. The program was motivated by the need to browse the content of a web-accessible ontology server: WEBKB-2. The ontology server contains descriptions of over 74,500 object types derived from the WORDNET 1.7 lexical database and can be accessed using RDF syntax. Such a structure creates complications for hyperbolic-style displays. In WEBKB-2 there are 140 stable ontology link types and a hyperbolic display needs to filter and iconify the view so different link relations can be distinguished in multi-link views. Our browsing tool, ONTORAMA, is therefore motivated by two possibly interfering aims: the first to display up to 10 times the number of nodes in a hyperbolic style view than using a conventional graphics display; secondly, to render the ontology with multiple links comprehensible in that view.},
added-at = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100},
address = {Tokyo},
author = {Eklund, Peter and Roberts, Natalyia and Green, Steve P.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ff0c356d870e2db6fc1f7e908162779a/neilernst},
booktitle = {First International Symposium on CyberWorlds (CW2002)},
citeulike-article-id = {111812},
comment = {based on ontobroker work - "While our research focus has been in experimenting with the cognitive adequacy of various layout options, forcedirected radial layout and alternatively hyperbolic geometric layouts, ONTORAMA has emerged as a practical tool for viewing ontologies described in RDF. It is for this reason that it is worthy of reporting. The project has also experimented with a Java3D and Macromedia Flash implementations which give rise to experiments with a 3D hyperbolic view [6], however the use of Java3D is motivated by the improved rendering of the 2D objects and the Flash implementation by a smaller application footprint and speed." - significant challenge for Ontorama and other hyperbolic browsers is that not all ontologies are strictly hierarchical according to the standard inheritance hierarchy (is-a). This means their approach must somehow handle the case where these relationships break in order to display all the nodes. - hyperbolic view has associated disadvantage of limited screen space, eg. the surface of a sphere, whereas the permissible screen space for a tree layout is infinite (just keep extending the page). In practice this distinction is not so large though as we are still constrained by the nodes per inch resolution. Is there an empirical limit on how many nodes one person can grasp at once? interesting case study.},
description = {sdasda},
interhash = {6d6bb84bb8d28fa131eb8888349e487f},
intrahash = {ff0c356d870e2db6fc1f7e908162779a},
keywords = {engineering information knowledge visualization},
pages = {405--411},
pdf = {eklund-ontorama.pdf},
priority = {0},
publisher = {IEEE},
timestamp = {2006-03-24T16:34:33.000+0100},
title = {Onto{R}ama: {B}rowsing an {RDF} {O}ntology using a {H}yperbolic-like {B}rowser},
url = {http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~nernst/papers/eklund-ontorama.pdf},
year = 2002
}