A Semantics-Based, End-User-Centered Information Visualization Process for Semantic Web Data

Abstract

Understanding and interpreting Semantic Web data is almost impossible for novices as skills in Semantic Web technologies are required. Thus, Information Visualization (InfoVis) of this data has become a key enabler to address this problem. However, convenient solutions are missing as existing tools either do not support Semantic Web data or require users to have programming and visualization skills. In this chapter, we propose a novel approach towards a generic InfoVis workbench called VizBoard, which enables users to visualize arbitrary Semantic Web data without expert skills in Semantic Web technologies, programming, and visualization. More precisely, we define a semantics-based, user-centered InfoVis workflow and present a corresponding workbench architecture based on the mashup paradigm, which actively supports novices in gaining insights from Semantic Web data, thus proving the practicability and validity of our approach.

References

  1. Boukhelifa, N., Roberts, J. C., & Rodgers, P. J. (2003). A coordination model for exploratory multiview visualization. In Coordinated and multiple views in exploratory visualization (pp. 76–85). Google Scholar
  2. Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163–177. doi:10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249. MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN: 1558605339. Google Scholar
  4. Chen, M., Ebert, D., Hagen, H., Laramee, R. S., van Liere, R., Ma, K.-L., et al.(2009). Data, information, and knowledge in visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29(1), 12–19. doi:10.1109/MCG.2009.6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 531–554. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dadzie, A.-S., & Rowe, M. (2011). Approaches to visualising linked data: a survey. Semantic Web, 2(1), 89–124. doi:10.3233/SW-2011-0037. Google Scholar
  7. Ding, L., DiFranzo, D., Graves, A., Michaelis, J., Li, X., McGuinness, D. L., & Hendler, J. A. (2010). TWC data-gov corpus: incrementally generating linked government data from data.gov. In WWW’10 (pp. 1383–1386). doi:10.1145/1772690.1772937. Google Scholar
  8. Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996). The KDD process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 27–34. doi:10.1145/240455.240464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glimm, B., Hogan, A., Krötzsch, M., & Polleres, A. (2012). Owl: yet to arrive on the web of data? In Linked data on the web (LDOW2012). Google Scholar
  10. Grammel, L., Tory, M., & Storey, M.-A. (2010). How information visualization novices construct visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16, 943–952. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haber, R., & McNabb, D. A. (1990). Visualization idioms: a conceptual model for scientific visualization systems. In Visualization in scientific computing (pp. 74–93). Google Scholar
  12. Hearst, M. A. (2009). Search user interfaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heer, J., van Ham, F., Carpendale, S., Weaver, C., & Isenberg, P. (2008). Creation and collaboration: engaging new audiences for information visualization (pp. 92–133). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70956-5_5. Google Scholar
  14. Kadlec, B. J., Tufo, H. M., & Dorn, G. A. (2010). Knowledge-assisted visualization and segmentation of geologic features. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 30(1), 30–39. doi:10.1109/MCG.2010.13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C., & Giannopoulou, E. (2007). Ontology visualization methods—a survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 39(4), 10. doi:10.1145/1287620.1287621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leida, M., Afzal, A., & Majeed, B. (2010). Outlines for dynamic visualization of semantic web data. In LNCS: Vol6428. On the move to meaningful internet systems: OTM 2010 workshops (pp. 170–179). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mazumdar, S., Petrelli, D., & Ciravegna, F. (2012). Exploring user and system requirements of linked data visualization through a visual dashboard approach. Semantic Web Journal. doi:10.3233/SW-2012-0072. Google Scholar
  18. Peroni, S., Motta, E., & d’Aquin, M. (2008). Identifying key concepts in an ontology, through the integration of cognitive principles with statistical and topological measures. In LNCS: Vol5367. The semantic web (pp. 242–256). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pietschmann, S. (2009). A model-driven development process and runtime platform for adaptive composite web applications. International Journal on Advances in Internet Technology, 4(1), 277–288. Google Scholar
  20. Pietschmann, S., Tietz, V., Reimann, J., Liebing, C., Pohle, M., & Meißner, K. (2010). A metamodel for context-aware component-based mashup applications. In Proc. of the 12th int. conf. on information integration and web-based applications & services. Google Scholar
  21. Popov, I., Schraefel, M., Hall, W., & Shadbolt, N. (2011). Connecting the dots: a multi-pivot approach to data exploration. In International semantic web conference. Google Scholar
  22. Potoniec, J., & Ławrynowicz, A. (2011). RMonto: ontological extension to RapidMiner. In 10th international semantic web conference (ISWC2011). Google Scholar
  23. Sahoo, S. S., Halb, W., Hellmann, S., Idehen, K., Thibodeau, Jr. T., Auer, S., et al. (2009). A survey of current approaches for mapping of relational databases to RDF. W3C RDB2RDF Incubator Group. Google Scholar
  24. Shneiderman, B. (1996). The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In Proc. of IEEE symp. on visual languages (pp. 336–343). doi:10.1109/VL.1996.545307. Google Scholar
  25. Sicilia, M. A., Rodríguez, D., García-Barriocanal, E., & Sánchez-Alonso, S. (2012). Empirical findings on ontology metrics. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 6706–6711. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.094. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tietz, V., Blichmann, G., Pietschmann, S., & Meißner, K. (2011). Task-based recommendation of mashup components. In Proc. of the 3rd intern. workshop on lightweight integration on the web (ComposableWeb 2011). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  27. van Wijk, J. J. (2005). The value of visualization. In Proceedings of IEEE visualization (pp. 79–86). doi:10.1.1.75.6547. Google Scholar
  28. Voigt, M., & Polowinski, J. (2011). Towards a unifying visualization ontology (Tech. Report No. TUD-FI11-01). Dresden, Germany, TU Dresden. ISSN: 1430-211X. Google Scholar
  29. Voigt, M., Pietschmann, S., Grammel, L., & Meißner, K. (2012a). Context-aware recommendation of visualization components. In Proc. of the 4th intern. conf. on information, process, and knowledge management (eKNOW 2012). Google Scholar
  30. Voigt, M., Werstler, A., Polowinski, J., & Meißner, K. (2012b). Weighted faceted browsing for characteristics-based visualization selection through end users. In Proc. of the 4th symp. on engineering interactive computing systems, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 151–156). doi:10.1145/2305484.2305509. Google Scholar
  31. Voigt, M., Mitschick, A., & Schulz, J. (2012c). Yet another triple store benchmark? Practical experiences with real-world data. In Proc. of. the 2nd intern. workshop on semantic digital archives (SDA). Google Scholar
  32. Voigt, M., Pietschmann, S., Meißner, K. (2012d). Towards a semantics-based, end-user-centered information visualization process. In Proc. of the 3rd international workshop on semantic models for adaptive interactive systems (SEMAIS 2012). Google Scholar
  33. Wang, X., Jeong, D. H., Dou, W., Lee, S.-W., Ribarsky, W., & Chang, R. (2009). Defining and applying knowledge conversion processes to a visual analytics system. Computers & Graphics, 33(5), 616–623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Voigt
    • 1
  • Stefan Pietschmann
    • 1
  • Klaus Meißner
    • 1
  1. 1.TU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations