Abstract
Our aim is to provide empirical evidence that diagrammatic logics are more effective than symbolic and textual logics in allowing people to better understand information. Ontologies provide an important focus for such an empirical study: people need to understand the axioms of which ontologies comprise. A between-groups study compared six frequently-used axiom types using the (textual) Manchester OWL Syntax (MOS), (symbolic) description logic (DL) and concept diagrams. Concept diagrams yielded significantly better task performance than DL for all six, and MOS for four, axiom types. MOS outperformed concept diagrams for just one axiom type and DL for only three axiom types. Thus diagrams could ensure ontologies are developed more robustly.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
