Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ViSWeb - the Visual Semantic Web: unifying human and machine knowledge representations with Object-Process Methodology

  • Published:
The VLDB Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

The Visual Semantic Web (ViSWeb) is a new paradigm for enhancing the current Semantic Web technology. Based on Object-Process Methodology (OPM), which enables modeling of systems in a single graphic and textual model, ViSWeb provides for representation of knowledge over the Web in a unified way that caters to human perceptions while also being machine processable. The advantages of the ViSWeb approach include equivalent graphic-text knowledge representation, visual navigability, semantic sentence interpretation, specification of system dynamics, and complexity management. Arguing against the claim that humans and machines need to look at different knowledge representation formats, the principles and basics of various graphic and textual knowledge representations are presented and examined as candidates for ViSWeb foundation. Since OPM is shown to be most adequate for the task, ViSWeb is developed as an OPM-based layer on top of XML/RDF/OWL to express knowledge visually and in natural language. Both the graphic and the textual representations are strictly equivalent. Being intuitive yet formal, they are not only understandable to humans but are also amenable to computer processing. The ability to use such bimodal knowledge representation is potentially a major step forward in the evolution of the Semantic Web.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson JR, Bower GH (1973) Human associative memory. Winston, Washington, DC

  2. Arnheim R (1969) Visual thinking. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

  3. Berners-Lee T (1998) What the Semantic Web can represent. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot.html

  4. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J (2001) Scientific publishing on the Semantic Web. Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/bernerslee.htm

  5. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The Semantic Web. Sci Am 284(5):34-43

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brachman R (1979) On the epistemological status of semantic networks. In: Findlee NV (ed) Associative networks: representation and use of knowledge by computer. Academic, New York, pp 3-50

  7. Bray T, Hollander D, Layman A (1999) Namespaces in XML, World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation, 14 January 1999. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names

  8. Brickley D, Guha RV (2002) RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C work in progress draft, 30 April 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema

  9. Chein M, Mugnier ML (1992) Conceptual graphs: fundamental notions. Rev Intell Artif 6(4):365-406

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corby O, Dieng R, Hebert C (2000) A conceptual graph model for W3C RDF. In: Proceedings of the international conference on conceptual structures (ICCS), Darmstadt, Germany, 14-18 August 2000. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/14625/ http:zSzzSzwww.int.gu.edu.auzSzkvozSzreadingzSz oliviericcs2000.pdf/dieng00conceptual.pdf

  11. Cyc. OpenCyc.org (2002) http://www.opencyc.org/

  12. Delteil A, Faron C (2002) A graph-based knowledge representation language. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), Lyon, France, 21-26 July 2002

  13. Delugach H (2003) Conceptual Graphs homepage. http://www.cs.uah.edu/~delugach/CG/

  14. Dori D (2002) Object-Process Methodology - a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York. www.ObjectProcess.org

  15. Dori D (2002) Why significant change in UML is unlikely. Commun ACM 45(11):82-85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dori D, Reinhartz-Berger I, Sturm A (2003) OPCAT - a bimodal CASE tool for object-process based system development. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 5th international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2003), Angers, France, 22-26 April 2003, pp 286-291. www.ObjectProcess.org

  17. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2002) http://www.dublincore.org/

  18. Gaines BR, Shaw MLG (1995) Concept maps as hypermedia components. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(3):323-361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Genesereth MR (1998) Knowledge Interchange Format. Draft proposal American National Standard (dpANS), NCITS.T2/98-004. http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html

  20. Lassila O, Swick R (1999) Resource Description Framework (RDF) model and syntax specification. W3C Recommendation, 22 February 1999. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax

  21. Lehman F (ed) (1999) Semantic networks in artificial intelligence. Pergamon, Oxford, UK

  22. Martin P, Eklund P (1999) Embedding knowledge in web documents: CGs versus XML metadata languages. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on conceptual structures (ICCS’99), Blacksburg, VA, 12-15 July 1999. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  23. Mayer RE (2002) Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York

  24. McTear MF (ed) (1998) Understanding cognitive science. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK

  25. Novak JD (1977) A theory of education. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

  26. Novak JD, Gowin DB (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press, New York

  27. OMG UML1.4. Object Management Group (2001) Unified Modeling Language v.1.4, September 2001. http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm

  28. OMG XMI. Object Management Group (2002) XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) specification v.1.2, January 2002. http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/xmi.htm

  29. Peirce CS (1932) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P (eds) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  30. Peleg M, Dori D (2000) The model multiplicity problem: experimenting with real-time specification methods. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(8):742-759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pepper S, Moore G (2001) XML Topic Maps (XTM) 1.0. TopicMaps. Org Specification, 2001. http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/

  32. Smith MK, McGuinness D, Volz R, Welty C (2002) Web Ontology Language (OWL) Guide Version 1.0. W3C Working Draft, 4 November 2002. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-guide-20021104/

  33. Sowa JF (1984) Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sowa JF (2000) Conceptual Graph Standard, 2000. http://users.bestweb.net/~sowa/cg/cgstandw.htm#Header\_44

  35. Sowa JF (2002) The Common Logic Standard initiative. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08241.html

  36. Sowa JF (1999) Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove, CA

    Google Scholar 

  37. W3C RDF Validation Service (2003) http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, 32000, Haifa, Israel

    Dov Dori

  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA 02139, Cambridge, USA

    Dov Dori

Authors
  1. Dov Dori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dov Dori.

Additional information

Received: 14 December 2002, Accepted: 28 November 2003, Published online: 6 February 2004

Edited by: V. Atluri

Dov Dori: dori@ie.technion.ac.il

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dori, D. ViSWeb - the Visual Semantic Web: unifying human and machine knowledge representations with Object-Process Methodology. VLDB 13, 120–147 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-004-0120-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-004-0120-x

Keywords:

Search

Navigation