Ontologies are created to describe and reason over the knowledge of a domain of interest. This requires deep understanding of the domain, and therefore, the input and collaboration of the domain’s experts. But, the individuals with the domain knowledge are rarely versed in model or ontology development, and do not know the formal languages or logic that express ontological concepts. What is needed is to create renderings of the ontologies that fit how the experts work and make it easy for them to create, review and evolve the domain concepts. This paper presents thoughts on how to bridge the gap between ontology and domain experts, and how to create effective and usable ontologies without ever using the “O” (“ontology”) word. In addition, the paper is intended to stimulate discussion on future directions for the techniques and technologies described here.
Bada, M., Stevens, R., Goble, C., Gil, Y., Ashburner, M., Blake, J., Cherry, M., Harris, M. & Lewis, S. (2004). A short study on the success of the gene ontology. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 1(2), 235–240. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2003.12.003.
2.
Bowers, S., Madin, J. & Schildhauer, M. (2010). Owlifier: Creating OWL-DL ontologies from simple spreadsheet-based knowledge descriptions. Ecological Informatics, 5(1), 19–25. Available at: http://www.cs.gonzaga.edu/~bowers/papers/ecoinf-2010.pdf. doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2009.08.010.
3.
Corcho, O., Fernandez-Lopez, M. & Gomez-Perez, A. (2003). Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point?Data & Knowledge Engineering, 46, 41–64. Available at: http://oa.upm.es/2637/1/JCR02.pdf. doi:10.1016/S0169-023X(02)00195-7.
4.
De Nicola, A. & Missikoff, M. (2016). A lightweight methodology for rapid ontology engineering. Communications of the ACM, 59(3), 79–86. doi:10.1145/2818359.
5.
De Nicola, A., Missikoff, M. & Navigli, R. (2005). A proposal for a Unified Process for Ontology Building: UPON. In DEXA 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3588, pp. 655–664). doi:10.1007/11546924_64.
6.
Dublin Core. DCMI specifications (2009). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://www.dublincore.org/specifications/.
7.
Earley, S. (2016). Really, really big data: NASA at the forefront of analytics. IT Professional, 18(1), 58–61. doi:10.1109/MITP.2016.10.
8.
FOAF. The FOAF Project (2000). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://www.foaf-project.org/.
9.
Fu, B., Noy, N. & Storey, M. (2013). Indented tree or graph? A usability study of ontology visualization techniques in the context of class mapping evaluation. In International Semantic Web Conference 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8218, pp. 117–134). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_8.
10.
Gene Ontology. Gene Ontology Consortium (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://www.geneontology.org/.
11.
GraphML. The GraphML file format (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://graphml.graphdrawing.org/.
12.
Howe, D., Costanzo, M., Fey, P., Gojobori, T., Hannick, L., Hide, W., Hill, D., Kania, R., Schaeffer, M., St Pierre, S., Twigger, S., White, O. & Rhee, S.Y. (2008). Big data: The future of biocuration. Nature, 455(7209), 47–50. doi:10.1038/455047a.
13.
Jupp, S., Horridge, M., Iannone, L., Klein, J., Owen, S., Schanstra, J., Stevens, R. & Wolstencroft, K. (2012). Populous: A tool for building OWL ontologies from templates. BMC Bioinformatics, 13(Supplement 1). Available at: http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-13-S1-S5. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-13-S1-S5.
14.
Katifori, A., Halatsis, C., Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C. & Giannopoulou, E. (2003). Ontology Visualization Methods – a Survey. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.79.7581&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
15.
Kovalenko, O., Serral, E. & Biffl, S. (2013). Towards evaluation and comparison of tools for ontology population from spreadsheet data. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Semantic Systems (pp. 57–64). doi:10.1145/2506182.2506190.
16.
Lanzenberger, M., Sampson, J. & Rester, M. (2010). Ontology visualization: Tools and techniques for visual representation of semi-structured meta-data. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 16(7), 1036–1054. Available at: http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc94/73af090e61dd758b7728aa8cccc31874962e.pdf.
17.
Lohmann, S., Negru, S., Haag, F. & Ertl, T. (2014). VOWL 2: User-oriented visualization of ontologies. Available at: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj750.pdf.
18.
Obrst, L., Gruninger, M., Baclawski, K., Bennett, M., Brickley, D., Berg-Cross, G., Hitzler, P., Janowicz, K., Kapp, C., Kutz, O., et al. (2014). Semantic web and big data meets applied ontology: The OntologySummit 2014. Applied Ontology, 9(2), 155–170. Available at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/OntologySummit2014_Communique/OntologySummit2014_Communique_v1-0-0_20140429-1045.pdf.
19.
OntoGraph (2016). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://github.com/NinePts/ontograph.
20.
Overton, J., Dietze, H., Essaid, S., Osumi-Sutherland, D. & Mungall, C. (2015). ROBOT: A command-line tool for ontology development. Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1515/demo6.pdf.
21.
OWL 2 – semantic web standards (2012). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from Available at: http://www.w3.org/OWL/.
22.
Populous (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://code.google.com/archive/p/owlpopulous/.
23.
RDF 1.1 – Resource Description Framework (2014). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://www.w3.org/RDF/.
24.
RightField. RightField, semantic annotation by Stealth (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://www.rightfield.org.uk/.
25.
ROBOT. GitHub – ontodev/robot (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://github.com/ontodev/robot.
26.
SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System namespace document, W3C recommendation (2009). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html.
27.
Stevens, R. (2012). Easing the pain of ontology building with Populous. Available at: http://robertdavidstevens.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/easing-the-pain-of-ontology-building-with-populous/.
28.
Sure, Y., Tempich, C. & Vrandecic, D. (2006). Ontology engineering methodologies. In J.Davies, R.Studer and P.Warren (Eds.), Semantic Web Technologies: Trends and Research in Ontology-Based Systems (pp. 171–190). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
29.
TARQL: SPARQL for tables (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://tarql.github.io/docs/.
30.
UML. Welcome to UML web site! (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from http://www.uml.org/index.htm.
31.
VOWL: Visual notation for OWL ontologies (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from Available at: http://vowl.visualdataweb.org/.
32.
Wolstencroft, K., Owen, S., Horridge, M., Krebs, O., Mueller, W., Snoep, J., du Preez, F. & Goble, C. (2011). RightField: Embedding ontology annotation in spreadsheets. Bioinformatics, 27(14), 2021–2022. Available at: http://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr312. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr312.
33.
yEd – graph editor (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2017, from Available at: http://www.yworks.com/products/yed.
