{"title":"反模式理解:一个经验评价","authors":"Tie Hou, P. Chapman, A. Blake","doi":"10.3233/978-1-61499-660-6-211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comprehension of justifications is known to be difficult for even experienced ontology engineers, and much more so for other stakeholders. In this paper, we present two methods for displaying justifications using concept diagrams: using multiple concept diagrams to represent the justification (one diagram for each axiom); and using a merged concept diagram to represent all axioms in the justification. We performed an empirical evaluation of both methods along with a textual representation of the justification using Prot´eg´e. The results were that novice users could both more accurately and more quickly identify an incoherence when using merged diagrams than using multiple diagrams or Prot´eg´e statements.","PeriodicalId":90829,"journal":{"name":"Formal ontology in information systems : proceedings of the ... International Conference. FOIS (Conference)","volume":"31 1","pages":"211-224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antipattern Comprehension: An Empirical Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Tie Hou, P. Chapman, A. Blake\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/978-1-61499-660-6-211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Comprehension of justifications is known to be difficult for even experienced ontology engineers, and much more so for other stakeholders. In this paper, we present two methods for displaying justifications using concept diagrams: using multiple concept diagrams to represent the justification (one diagram for each axiom); and using a merged concept diagram to represent all axioms in the justification. We performed an empirical evaluation of both methods along with a textual representation of the justification using Prot´eg´e. The results were that novice users could both more accurately and more quickly identify an incoherence when using merged diagrams than using multiple diagrams or Prot´eg´e statements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Formal ontology in information systems : proceedings of the ... International Conference. FOIS (Conference)\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"211-224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Formal ontology in information systems : proceedings of the ... International Conference. FOIS (Conference)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-660-6-211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Formal ontology in information systems : proceedings of the ... International Conference. FOIS (Conference)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-660-6-211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

众所周知,即使是经验丰富的本体工程师也很难理解证明,对其他涉众来说更是如此。在本文中,我们提出了两种使用概念图来显示证明的方法:使用多个概念图来表示证明(每个公理一个图);并使用合并的概念图来表示论证中的所有公理。我们对这两种方法进行了实证评估,并使用Prot ' eg ' e对论证进行了文本表示。结果表明,当使用合并图时,新手用户可以比使用多个图或Prot ' eg ' e语句更准确、更快速地识别不一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Antipattern Comprehension: An Empirical Evaluation
Comprehension of justifications is known to be difficult for even experienced ontology engineers, and much more so for other stakeholders. In this paper, we present two methods for displaying justifications using concept diagrams: using multiple concept diagrams to represent the justification (one diagram for each axiom); and using a merged concept diagram to represent all axioms in the justification. We performed an empirical evaluation of both methods along with a textual representation of the justification using Prot´eg´e. The results were that novice users could both more accurately and more quickly identify an incoherence when using merged diagrams than using multiple diagrams or Prot´eg´e statements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fiat Surfaces in the Basic Formal Ontology. Axiomatizing SNOMED CT Disorders: Should There Be Room for Interpretation? Asymmetric Hybrids: Dialogues for Computational Concept Combination Debugging Classical Ontologies Using Defeasible Reasoning Tools Towards a Unified Dispositional Framework for Realizable Entities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1