In this paper we introduce Eddy, a new open-source tool for the graphical editing of OWL 2 ontologies. Eddy is specifically designed for creating ontologies in Graphol, a completely visual ontology language that is equivalent to OWL 2. Thus, in Eddy ontologies are easily drawn as diagrams, rather than written as sets of formulas, as commonly happens in popular ontology design and engineering environments. This makes Eddy particularly suited for usage by people who are more familiar with diagramatic languages for conceptual modeling rather than with typical ontology formalisms, as is often required in non-academic and industrial contexts. Eddy provides intuitive functionalities for specifying Graphol diagrams, guarantees their syntactic correctness, and allows for exporting them in standard OWL 2 syntax. A user evaluation study we conducted shows that Eddy is perceived as an easy and intuitive tool for ontology specification.
A.Amoroso, G.Esposito, D.Lembo, P.Urbano and R.Vertucci, Ontology-based data integration with Mastro-i for configuration and data management at SELEX Sistemi Integrati, in: Proc. of the 16th Ital. Conf. on Database Systems (SEBD), 2008, pp. 81–92.
2.
N.Antonioli, F.Castanò, S.Coletta, S.Grossi, D.Lembo, M.Lenzerini, A.Poggi, E.Virardi and P.Castracane, Ontology-based data management for the Italian public debt, in: Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS), 2014, pp. 372–385.
3.
F.Baader, D.Calvanese, D.McGuinness, D.Nardi and P.F.Patel-Schneider (eds), The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
4.
J.-F.Baget, M.Leclère, M.-L.Mugnier and E.Salvat, On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line, Artificial Intelligence175(9–10) (2011), 1620–1654. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2011.03.002.
5.
D.Beckett, T.Berners-Lee, E.Prud’hommeaux and G.Carothers, RDF 1.1 Turtle – Terse RDF Triple Language. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 2014, available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/.
6.
S.Brockmans, R.Volz, A.Eberhart and P.Löffler, Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML, in: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3298, Springer, 2004, pp. 198–213.
7.
A.Calì, G.Gottlob and T.Lukasiewicz, A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies, J. of Web Semantics14 (2012), 57–83. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.03.001.
8.
D.Calvanese, B.Cogrel, S.Komla-Ebri, R.Kontchakov, D.Lanti, M.Rezk, M.Rodriguez-Muro and G.Xiao, Ontop: Answering sparql queries over relational databases, Semantic Web J.8(3) (2017), 471–487. doi:10.3233/SW-160217.
9.
D.Calvanese, G.De Giacomo, D.Lembo, M.Lenzerini, A.Poggi, M.Rodriguez-Muro, R.Rosati, M.Ruzzi and D.F.Savo, The Mastro system for ontology-based data access, Semantic Web J.2(1) (2011), 43–53.
10.
P.P.Chen, The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data, ACM Trans. on Database Systems1(1) (1976), 9–36. doi:10.1145/320434.320440.
11.
B.Cuenca Grau, I.Horrocks, B.Motik, B.Parsia, P.Patel-Schneider and U.Sattler, OWL 2: The next step for OWL, J. of Web Semantics6(4) (2008), 309–322. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001.
12.
I.da Silva, G.Santucci and C.del Sasso Freitas, Ontology visualization: One size does not fit all, in: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Eurovis Workshop on Visual Analytics (EuroVA), 2012, pp. 91–95.
13.
K.X.de Souza, A.D.dos Santos and S.R.Evangelista, Visualization of ontologies through hypertrees, in: Proc. of the 1st Latin American Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction, ACM, 2003, pp. 251–255.
14.
G.Di Battista, P.Eades, R.Tamassia and I.G.Tollis, Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs, Prentice-Hall, 1999.
R.Falco, A.Gangemi, S.Peroni, D.Shotton and F.Vitali, Modelling OWL ontologies with Graffoo, in: ESWC 2014 Satellite Events, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8798, 2014, pp. 320–325.
17.
P.R.Fillottrani, E.Franconi and S.Tessaris, The ICOM 3.0 intelligent conceptual modelling tool and methodology, Semantic Web J.3(3) (2012), 293–306.
18.
M.R.Genesereth, Knowledge Interchange Format, in: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), 1991, pp. 599–600.
19.
J.H.Gennari, M.A.Musen, R.W.Fergerson, W.E.Grosso, M.Crubézy, H.Eriksson, N.F.Noy and S.W.Tu, The evolution of Protégé: An environment for knowledge-based systems development, Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies58(1) (2003), 89–123. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(02)00127-1.
20.
B.Glimm, I.Horrocks, B.Motik, G.Stoilos and Z.Wang, Hermit: An OWL 2 reasoner, J. of Automated Reasoning53(3) (2014), 245–269. doi:10.1007/s10817-014-9305-1.
21.
Gnu General Public License (GPL), Gnu gpl version 3 Documentation, 2016, available at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL.
22.
B.C.Grau and B.Motik, Reasoning over ontologies with hidden content: The import-by-query approach, CoRR, abs/1401.5853, 2014.
23.
T.R.Gruber, Ontolingua: A mechanism to support portable ontologies, Technical report, Stanford University Knowledge Systems Laboratory, 1992.
24.
T.R.Gruber, Towards principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, in: Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation, N.Guarino and R.Poli, eds, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
25.
N.Guarino, D.Oberle and S.Staab, What is an ontology?, in: Handbook on Ontologies, Springer, 2009, pp. 1–17.
26.
G.Guizzardi, Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models, PhD thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 2005.
27.
P.Haase, H.Lewen, R.Studer, D.T.Tran, M.Erdmann, M.d”Aquin and E.Motta, The NeOn ontology engineering toolkit, in: The 17th Int. World Wide Web Conf. – Developers Track, 2008.
28.
P.Hitzler, M.Krötzsch, B.Parsia, P.F.Patel-Schneider and S.Rudolph, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Primer (second edition). W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 2012, available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/.
29.
M.Horridge and P.F.Patel-Schneider, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Manchester Syntax (second edition). W3C Working group note, World Wide Web Consortium, 2012, available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/.
30.
I.Horrocks, O.Kutz and U.Sattler, The even more irresistible SROIQ, in: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), 2006, pp. 57–67.
31.
ISO/IEC, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. ISO/IEC 24707: Information technology–Common Logic (CL): A Framework for a Family of Logic-Based Languages, 2nd edn, 2007.
32.
M.Kifer, Rule Interchange Format: The framework, in: Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5341, Springer, 2008, pp. 1–11. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88737-9_1.
33.
M.Kifer, G.Lausen and J.Wu, Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages, J. of the ACM42(4) (1995), 741–843. doi:10.1145/210332.210335.
34.
S.Krivov, R.Williams and F.Villa, GrOWL: A tool for visualization and editing of OWL ontologies, J. of Web Semantics5(2) (2007), 54–57. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.005.
35.
D.Lembo, J.Mora, R.Rosati, D.F.Savo and E.Thorstensen, Mapping analysis in ontology-based data access: Algorithms and complexity, in: Proc. of the 14th Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9366, Springer, 2015, pp. 217–234.
36.
D.Lembo, D.Pantaleone, V.Santarelli and D.F.Savo, Easy OWL drawing with the Graphol visual ontology language, in: Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), 2016, pp. 573–576.
37.
D.Lembo, D.Pantaleone, V.Santarelli and D.F.Savo, Eddy: A graphical editor for OWL 2 ontologies, in: Proc. of the 25th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2016, pp. 4252–4253.
38.
D.Lembo, R.Rosati, M.Ruzzi, D.F.Savo and E.Tocci, Visualization and management of mappings in ontology-based data access (progress report), in: Proc. of the 27th Int. Workshop on Description Logic (DL), CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1193, CEUR-WS.org, 2014, pp. 595–607.
39.
D.Lembo, V.Santarelli and D.F.Savo, The Graphol language for OWL 2 ontology editing and visualization, 2017, Manuscript, available at: http://obdasystems.com/sites/default/files/graphol.pdf.
40.
D.B.Lenat and R.V.Guha, Building Large Knowledge-Based Systems: Representation and Inference in the Cyc Project, Addison Wesley Publ. Co., 1990.
41.
M.Lenzerini, Ontology-based data management, in: Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), 2011, pp. 5–6.
42.
R.Liepins, M.Grasmanis and U.Bojars, OWLGrEd ontology visualizer, in: Proc. of ISWC Developers Workshop, CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1268, CEUR-WS.org, 2014, pp. 37–42.
43.
S.Lohmann, S.Negru, F.Haag and T.Ertl, Visualizing ontologies with VOWL, Semantic Web J.7(4) (2015), 399–419. doi:10.3233/SW-150200.
44.
B.Motik, B.Parsia and P.F.Patel-Schneider, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language structural specification and functional-style syntax (second edition). W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 2012, available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/.
45.
B.Motik, B.Parsia and P.F.Patel-Schneider, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML Serialization (second edition). W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 2012, available at: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20121211/.
46.
E.Motta, An overview of the OCML modelling language, in: Proc. of the 8th Workshop on Knowledge Engineering Methods and Languages (KEML), 1998.
47.
R.D.Murray, Python 3.4. Python Documentation, 2014, available at: https://docs.python.org/3.4/whatsnew/3.4.html.
J.Nielsen, Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics, in: Proc. of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), ACM Press, 1994, pp. 152–158.
50.
Pyjnius, Pyjnius Documentation, 2016, available at: http://pyjnius.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.
51.
Python 3.4, Pyqt Documentation, 2016, available at: https://riverbankcomputing.com/software/pyqt/intro.
52.
Qt 5.7, Qt Documentation, 2016, available at: https://www.qt.io/.
53.
A.A.Romero, M.Kaminski, B.C.Grau and I.Horrocks, Module extraction in expressive ontology languages via datalog reasoning, J. of Artificial Intelligence Research55 (2016), 499–564.
54.
D.F.Savo, D.Lembo, M.Lenzerini, A.Poggi, M.Rodríguez-Muro, V.Romagnoli, M.Ruzzi and G.Stella, Mastro at work: Experiences on ontology-based data access, in: Proc. of the 23rd Int. Workshop on Description Logic (DL), CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 573, CEUR-WS.org, 2010, pp. 20–31.
55.
N.Shadbolt, W.Hall and T.Berners-Lee, The Semantic Web revisited, IEEE Intelligent Systems21(3) (2006), 96–101. doi:10.1109/MIS.2006.62.
56.
B.Shneiderman, Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d space-filling approach, ACM Trans. on Graphics11(1) (1992), 92–99. doi:10.1145/102377.115768.
57.
B.Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Pearson Education India, 2010.
58.
S.Staab and R.Studer (eds), Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems, 2nd edn, Springer, 2009.
59.
G.Stapleton, J.Howse, K.Taylor, A.Delaney, J.Burton and P.Chapman, Towards diagrammatic ontology patterns, in: Proc. of the 4th Workshop on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns (WOP), 2013.
60.
R.Studer, V.R.Benjamins and D.Fensel, Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods, Data and Knowledge Engineering25(1–2) (1998), 161–197. doi:10.1016/S0169-023X(97)00056-6.
61.
Unified Modeling Language (UML) superstructure, version 2.0, available at http://www.uml.org/, 2005.
62.
M.Q.Wang Baldonado, A.Woodruff and A.Kuchinsky, Guidelines for using multiple views in information visualization, in: Proc. of the 1st Working Conf. on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI), ACM, 2000, pp. 110–119. doi:10.1145/345513.345271.
63.
M.Weiten, Ontostudio® as a ontology engineering environment, in: Semantic Knowledge Management, Springer, 2009, pp. 51–60. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88845-1_5.
