Ruben’s data

Matches in Ruben’s data for { <https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SW-210450> ?p ?o }

Showing triples 1 to 100 of ±121 with 100 triples per page.

SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author ruben_wambacq.
SW-210450 author femke_bruckmann.
SW-210450 author erik_mannens.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 creator me.
SW-210450 creator me.
SW-210450 creator me.
SW-210450 creator ruben_wambacq.
SW-210450 creator femke_bruckmann.
SW-210450 creator erik_mannens.
SW-210450 creator me.
SW-210450 creator me.
SW-210450 about visual_notation.
SW-210450 about VOWL.
SW-210450 about UML.
SW-210450 about validation.
SW-210450 about visualization.
SW-210450 about data_shapes.
SW-210450 about SHACL.
SW-210450 about constraints.
SW-210450 about RDF.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author ruben_wambacq.
SW-210450 author femke_bruckmann.
SW-210450 author erik_mannens.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 author me.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith me.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith me.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith me.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith ruben_wambacq.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith femke_bruckmann.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith erik_mannens.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith me.
SW-210450 coparticipatesWith me.
SW-210450 type PublicationVolume.
SW-210450 type ScholarlyArticle.
SW-210450 type Article.
SW-210450 type Document.
SW-210450 type Q386724.
SW-210450 type CreativeWork.
SW-210450 type Document.
SW-210450 type Work.
SW-210450 type Document.
SW-210450 P50 me.
SW-210450 P50 me.
SW-210450 P50 me.
SW-210450 P50 ruben_wambacq.
SW-210450 P50 femke_bruckmann.
SW-210450 P50 erik_mannens.
SW-210450 P50 me.
SW-210450 P50 me.
SW-210450 maker me.
SW-210450 maker me.
SW-210450 maker me.
SW-210450 maker ruben_wambacq.
SW-210450 maker femke_bruckmann.
SW-210450 maker erik_mannens.
SW-210450 maker me.
SW-210450 maker me.
SW-210450 title "Visual Notations for Viewing RDF Constraints with UnSHACLed".
SW-210450 isPartOf semantic_web_journal.
SW-210450 name "Visual Notations for Viewing RDF Constraints with UnSHACLed".
SW-210450 label "Visual Notations for Viewing RDF Constraints with UnSHACLed".
SW-210450 name "Visual Notations for Viewing RDF Constraints with UnSHACLed".
SW-210450 topic visual_notation.
SW-210450 topic VOWL.
SW-210450 topic UML.
SW-210450 topic validation.
SW-210450 topic visualization.
SW-210450 topic data_shapes.
SW-210450 topic SHACL.
SW-210450 topic constraints.
SW-210450 topic RDF.
SW-210450 subject visual_notation.
SW-210450 subject VOWL.
SW-210450 subject UML.
SW-210450 subject validation.
SW-210450 subject visualization.
SW-210450 subject data_shapes.
SW-210450 subject SHACL.
SW-210450 subject constraints.
SW-210450 subject RDF.
SW-210450 authorList b0_b1884.
SW-210450 topic visual_notation.
SW-210450 topic VOWL.
SW-210450 topic UML.
SW-210450 topic validation.
SW-210450 topic visualization.
SW-210450 topic data_shapes.
SW-210450 topic SHACL.
SW-210450 topic constraints.
SW-210450 topic RDF.
SW-210450 abstract "The quality of knowledge graphs can be assessed by a validation against specified constraints, typically use-case specific and modeled by human users in a manual fashion. Visualizations can improve the modeling process as they are specifically designed for human information processing, possibly leading to more accurate constraints, and in turn higher quality knowledge graphs. However, it is currently unknown how such visualizations support users when viewing RDF constraints as no scientific evidence for the visualizations’ effectiveness is provided. Furthermore, some of the existing tools are likely suboptimal, as they lack support for edit operations or common constraints types. To establish a baseline, we have defined visual notations to represent RDF constraints and implemented them in UnSHACLed, a tool that is independent of a concrete RDF constraint language. In this paper, we (i) present two visual notations that support all SHACL core constraints, built upon the commonly used visualizations VOWL and UML, (ii) analyze both notations based on cognitive effective design principles, (iii) perform a comparative user study between both visual notations, and (iv) present our open source tool UnSHACLed incorporating our efforts. Users were presented RDF constraints in both visual notations and had to answer questions based on visualization task taxonomies. Although no statistical significant difference in mean error rates was observed, all study participants preferred ShapeVOWL in a self assessment to answer RDF constraint-related questions. Furthermore, ShapeVOWL adheres to more cognitive effective design principles according to our performed comparison. Study participants argued that the increased visual features of ShapeVOWL made it easier to spot constraints, but a list of constraints – as in ShapeUML – is easier to read. However, also that more deviations from the strict UML specification and introduction of more visual features can improve ShapeUML. From these findings we conclude that ShapeVOWL has a higher potential to represent RDF constraints more effective compared to ShapeUML. But also that the clear and efficient text encoding of ShapeUML can be improved with visual features. A one-size-fits-all approach to RDF constraint visualization and editing will be insufficient. Therefore, to support different audiences and use cases, user interfaces of RDF constraint editors need to support different visual notations.".