visualisation of semantic enrichment › download › pdf › 29362201.pdfvisualisation of semantic...
TRANSCRIPT
Visualisation of Semantic Enrichment
Alexa Schlegel1, Ralf Heese1, Annika Hinze2
1Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany
aschle, heese @inf.fu-berlin.de 2University of Waikato, New Zealand
Abstract: Automatically creating semantic enrichments for text may lead to
annotations that allow for excellent recall but poor precision. Manual enrichment is
potentially more targeted, leading to greater precision. We aim to support non-
experts in manually enriching texts with semantic annotations. Neither the
visualisation of semantic enrichment nor the process of manually enriching texts
has been evaluated before. This paper presents the results of our user study on
visualisation of text enrichment during the annotation process. We performed
extensive analysis of work related to the visualisation of semantic annotations. In a
prototype implementation, we then explored two layout alternatives for visualising
semantic annotations and their linkage to the text atoms. Here we summarise and
discuss our results and their design implications for tools creating semantic
annotations.
1 Introduction
With semantic technologies, annotations are no longer about the content (as in Web 2.0
tagging) but become part of the content. Such semantic enrichment typically consists of
an annotated text passage (text atom) and related information (annotation). Clear
visualisation of enrichment, that is, indication of text atom and linkage to annotation, is
important for both the definition of annotations and the reading of enriched text.
Furthermore, it is essential for the acceptance of semantic technologies that non-experts
are enabled to produce and consume semantically enriched content.
Here we focus on the visualisation of enrichment during the annotation process. To the
best of our knowledge, neither the visualisation of semantic enrichment nor the process
of manually enriching texts has been evaluated before. Additionally, research on
presentation of semantically annotated documents typically targets the rather passive
reception aspects of data visualisation. Our research is motivated by experiences in two
projects, TIP and loomp, addressing the annotation of content by non-experts. TIP is a
mobile tourist information system that provides different information depending on a
user’ interests [Hin09]. Textual information in TIP has to undergo a semantic enrichment
process to be prepared for this interest-based filtering [Hsi08]. Loomp is a tool for the
management of semantic enrichment, which we applied to texts (predominantly) relating
to museums and their exhibitions [Luc09]. In loomp, users enrich texts semantically by
linking text passages to concepts, thus forming annotations with additional, structured
1047
informatio
assign cate
for generat
open new
generation
In this pap
during ann
allowed u
architectur
their linka
discuss our
The remain
annotation
highlightin
and the im
user study
research an
2 Cha
The proces
a text. We
Atoms and
We here de
All of thes
Cardinalit
atoms and
refer to the
relationshi
Granulari
document.
Positionin
Overlappin
Figure 1: P
1 Available at
n. While atom
egories to long
ting rich cont
ways of loc
of new seman
per, we report
notation. We i
users to creat
re). We explor
age to annota
r results and d
nder of the pa
ns. In Section 3
ng annotations
mplementation
are discussed
nd give an ove
aracteristics
ss of semantic
e refer to an a
d annotations d
efine a list of
e characteristi
ty. We differ
annotations.
e same annota
ps. Semantic
ity. An atom
If a documen
ng. We distin
ng annotations
(a)
(c)
Positioning of a
t https://github.co
ms typically c
ger text passag
tent and recom
cating, access
ntic links.
the results of
mplemented a
te text annot
red two layou
ations along
design implica
aper is structur
3 we present t
s. We then des
of our highli
d in Section 5
erview of futu
s of Annota
c enrichment l
atom as a con
do not need to
properties for
ics directly in
rentiate betwe
For example,
ation. Commen
annotations of
could be defi
nt is the smalle
nguish betwee
s additionally
annotations: (a)
om/aschle/Overla
consist of only
ges. In both ca
mmendations
sing and reus
f our user stud
a system for l
tations by re
ut alternatives
four characte
ations for tool
red as follows
the results of
scribe the met
ighting appro
5. Finally, we
ure work in Se
ations
links additiona
ntinuous porti
o be represente
r characterizin
nfluence the vi
een 1:1, 1:n,
, n:1 means th
nting in word
ften have n:1
ined as charac
est atom, anno
en overlappin
may be the sp
(
(d)
Overlapping, (
appingAnnotation
y a few words
ases, the anno
for tourist inf
sing existing
dy on visualis
light-weight se
eferring to c
for the visual
eristics of vis
s creating sem
s: Section 2 di
our analysis o
thodology and
aches in Secti
e summarize
ection 6.
al information
ion of a text
ed in the same
ng (relationshi
isualization of
n:1, and n:m
hat an arbitrar
d processors re
relationships.
cter, word, ph
otations are re
ng and adjac
pecial cases of
(b)
b) inclusion, (c
ns
s in loomp, in
tations may b
formation sys
content as w
sation of text
emantic enrich
categories (e.g
lisation of text
sual feedback
mantic annotat
scusses charac
of current app
d set-up of our
ion 4. The res
the contributi
n into the main
linked to an
e data format.
ips between) a
f atoms and an
m relationship
ry number of
esult mainly in
hrase, sentence
ferred to as m
cent atoms (c
f inclusion or
) identity, and (
n TIP, users
be used later
stems. They
well as the
enrichment
chment1 that
g., history,
t atoms and
k. Here we
tions.
acteristics of
proaches for
r user study
sults of our
ions of this
n content of
annotation.
annotations.
nnotations.
ps between
atoms may
n 1:1 or 1:n
e, or whole
metadata.
cf. Fig. 1).
identity.
(d) adjacent
1048
Highlighti
within a t
backgroun
Position o
correspond
next to the
Visualisin
employed:
Connectio
backgroun
positioned
3 Rela
We evalua
research h
available o
introduced
The summ
the suppor
(otherwise
support all
that a visu
this type o
visualizatio
We now d
manual an
options fo
annotation
ing atoms an
text are mod
d colour, and
of annotations
ding atom (so
atom, or belo
g overlappin
mix of colour
Figure 2: Ov
ons. To indic
d colour may
nearby or mo
ated Work
ated work re
has been perf
on the Web fo
d in Section 2 t
marised results
rted alternativ
left blank).
l four options.
alisation is su
of overlapping
on.
discuss each
nd automatic
or manual ann
n, some suppor
d annotation
dification of
use of graphic
s. Options for
metimes freel
ow the docume
ng atoms. To
rs, stack view
verlapping anno
ate the relatio
y be assigned t
ouse-over effe
lated to the
formed in th
or annotating
to analyse the
of our evalua
ves between
For overlapp
Each option
upported but h
g may occur in
of the analys
annotations (
notation only
rt categories (
ns. Typical app
text styles (
cal elements (
r positioning a
ly movable),
ent.
indicate over
w, stripes, and
otations: mixtur
onship betwe
to both atoms
ects are used.
visualisation
his area and
ebooks or ot
e visualisation
ation are listed
options in a
ing annotatio
that is fully su
has design lim
n the text, the
sed systems a
(e.g., Gate, O
y. Most of th
as done in our
proaches to v
(e.g., underlin
(e.g., boxes or
annotations ar
in the left or
rlapping atoms
vertical lines
re of colours an
een atoms and
s and annotati
of semantic
most availab
ther texts. We
n supported by
d in Figure 3.
characteristic
ons, a system
upported is m
mitations, and
e software do
and tools in t
OpenCalais, rd
e systems an
r approach).
isually disting
ne or bold),
r icons).
re as an overl
right margin
s, different str
in the margin
nd stack view
d annotations
ions, annotatio
annotations.
ble annotation
e used the cha
y available too
In the table i
c are indicate
’s visualisatio
marked with +;
– indicates th
es not provide
turn. Some su
dfquery), othe
nalysed suppo
guish atoms
change of
lay near the
n of the text
rategies are
n.
s, the same
ons may be
Not much
n tools are
aracteristics
ols.
in Figure 3,
ed by an x
on may not
; o indicates
hat although
de a specific
upport both
ers provide
ort free-text
1049
Figure 3: Tools for creatting annotations and their charracteristics
1050
Booktate (
typically se
can create
annotation
An annota
correspond
enough sp
created bet
mixture of
such an an
A.nnotate
activities t
characters.
Users can
bottom ma
backgroun
annotation
annotation
title of the
at the sam
within its
application
annotation
users assig
distinguish
supports a
Crocodoc
into HTML
four backg
margin at t
line betwe
annotation
as an overl
Although u
same back
(www.booktat
et at word lev
several anno
ns). Atoms are
ation is place
ding atoms an
pace for the a
tween two par
f colours is use
notation then
(a.nnotate.com
that are supp
. The backgro
select one of
argin (overlay
d colour. D
n is indicated
ns near the ato
annotations.
me height as t
context. The
n supports all
ns may cover
gn the same o
h overlapping
special strateg
(crocodoc.com
L5 format and
ground colour
the same heig
een atom and
n the correspon
lay near the at
users can sele
kground colou
te.com) is a
vel; however, a
otations for a
highlighted b
ed in the mar
nd has the sam
annotations ne
ragraphs. To v
ed (similar to
the original c
m) is a Web
ported are cr
und colour of
f three visuali
y and margin
epending on
d differently.
om over the te
If the annotat
he atom. If it
e order of an
types of over
earlier ones l
r no backgrou
atoms withou
gy for overlap
Figure 4: A
m) is a Web a
d supports ann
rs for highligh
ght as the corr
its annotatio
nding atom is
tom.
ect the backg
ur (see Figure
system for a
annotations on
single atom (
by assigning a
rgin directly
me backgroun
ext to a para
visualize the o
Figure 2, top)
colour is restor
b application
reating of co
f text atoms ca
izations for an
layout show
the visualiz
In case of
ext. In the oth
tion is placed
t is located a
nnotation corr
rlapping annot
leading to pro
und colour to
ut selecting o
pping annotati
A.nnotate over
application tha
notation of the
hting atoms.
responding at
on. If users ho
s indicated and
ground colour
5). The syste
annotating eB
n section leve
(1:n relations
a background
beside the p
nd colour as
agraph, a larg
overlapping of
). If users hov
red.
for annotati
mments, strik
an be changed
nnotations, ov
wn in Figure 4
zation, the li
f an overlay
her cases it u
on the right m
at the bottom
responds to th
tations except
oblems access
the atoms, th
one of them (i
ions).
lay options
at converts of
ese documents
Annotations
tom. Addition
over with the
d the annotati
of an atom,
em supports tw
Books. An an
l are also poss
hips between
colour or by u
paragraph con
the atom. If t
ger empty spa
f two atoms a
ver with their m
ng PDF files
king text, an
d to one of sev
verlay, right m
4) and also c
ink between
the applicat
ses the annota
margin then it
then the atom
he order of a
t identity. How
sing older ann
hey would not
i.e., the system
ffice documen
s. Users can se
appear in the
nally, the syste
e mouse point
on is addition
all annotation
wo kinds of a
nnotation is
sible. Users
n atoms and
underlining.
ntaining the
there is not
ace may be
a subtractive
mouse over
s. Example
nd inserting
ven colours.
margin, and
choose their
atom and
tion places
ated text as
t is position
m is shown
atoms. The
wever, later
notations. If
t be able to
em does not
nts and PDF
elect one of
e right-hand
em draws a
nter over an
nally shown
ns have the
annotations:
1051
highlight a
atoms are
selected. In
Using diig
Crocodoc,
application
is indicate
When open
a pop-up o
Bible+ is a
passages a
between d
offers mos
rdfquery (c
generating
correspond
Independen
inclusions
Gate (gate
categories)
highlighted
overlappin
Additional
and comment
covered by n
n case of ident
go (www.diig
users can sel
n allows users
d by a speech
ning a docum
on mouse-over
an iphone app
as well as se
different texts
t versatile sup
Figur
code.google.c
RDFa elemen
ding annotatio
ntly of their s
as overlappin
e.ac.uk) is a to
) are displaye
d in the same
ng atoms are
lly, users can
t. Overlappin
newer ones a
tity, none of th
Figure 5
go.com) users
lect one of fou
s to add comm
h bubble show
ment, all annota
r. Only identic
for Bible read
earch in the
and differen
pport of overla
re 6: Bible+ ove
om/p/rdfquery
nts. It uses fra
ons (e.g., fac
semantics, all
ng annotations
oolkit for anal
d in the right
background c
e supported
open a stack
ng annotations
and the overl
the overlappin
5: Crocodoc ann
s can add an
ur backgroun
ments to atom
wing the num
ations are init
cal overlappin
ding. Users ca
annotated tex
nt devices. Be
apping annota
erlapping annot
y) is a JavaSc
ames for high
cts about nam
frames have
s; adjacent ato
lyzing and pro
t-hand margin
colour as the c
using a mix
view showin
s are support
lapping part o
ng atoms can b
notations
nnotations to
nd colours for
ms. The presen
mber of comm
tially hidden a
ng annotations
an take notes,
xt. Annotation
etween the an
ations (see Fig
tations (here on
cript library fo
hlighting atom
med entities) i
the same colo
ms are well d
ocessing texts
n (see area (1)
corresponding
xture of the
ng the atoms a
ted, but older
of two atoms
be selected.
web-pages.
highlighting
nce of such an
ments linked t
and are only d
s are supported
highlight, and
ns can be sy
nalysed system
gure 6).
n ipad)
or parsing, qu
s in the text a
in the left-ha
our. The libra
istinguishable
s. Annotation
) in Figure 7)
g annotation. A
ir backgroun
as horizontal b
r annotated
s cannot be
Similar to
atoms. The
n annotation
to an atom.
displayed as
d.
d bookmark
ynchronised
ems, Bible+
uerying, and
and displays
and margin.
ary supports
e.
types (e.g.,
); atoms are
All types of
nd colours.
bars having
1052
the corresp
different le
Atlas.ti (w
science [M
level and a
software. I
but are ind
shows the
mouse-ove
only when
each availa
veeeb (ww
semantic a
colour. Th
more atom
OpenCalai
OpenCalai
facts”. The
system ass
clearly ide
need to hov
ponding back
evels (see (2) a
Fig
www.atlasti.co
Muh94]. The
an arbitrary n
In contrast to
dicated by vert
assigned ann
er nearby the
n users select a
able colour.
ww.veeeb.com
annotations. A
he tool implem
ms overlap the
is (viewer.ope
is viewer sup
e atoms are u
signs different
entified betwe
ver the mouse
kground colou
and (3) in Fig
gure 7: Gate ann
om) is a tool
authors ident
number of ove
other annotat
tical bars in th
notations and
correspondin
a bar. The bar
m) is a Web
All recognize
ments a speci
darker is the o
Figure
encalais.com)
pports only tw
underlined or
t colours to di
een atoms of
e over an atom
ur. In case o
gure 7).
notations includ
l for evaluati
tify the suppo
erlapping ann
tion software,
he right-hand
displays the
ng bar. The re
rs are arrange
b-based tool
ed entities are
ial technique
orange colour
e 8: veeeb anno
is a service f
wo types of a
r assigned a b
ifferent annota
different type
m to see the co
f overlapping
ding the stack v
ing textual d
ort for both a
notations as th
, atoms are no
margin. In the
content of an
elated atom i
ed into column
for analyzin
e highlighted
for indicating
r (see Figure 8
otations
for analyzing
annotations: “
background c
ations. Overla
es. For atoms
omplete atom.
g atoms the b
view
ata conducted
annotations on
he main featu
ot highlighted
e margin, the s
n atom as an
s highlighted
ns, using one
ng texts and
using the sa
g overlapping
8).
and enriching
“entities” and
colour, respec
apping atoms c
of the same
bars are on
d in social
on character
ures of their
d in the text
system also
overlay on
in the text
column for
generating
ame orange
atoms: the
g texts. The
“events &
ctively. The
can only be
type, users
1053
TIP is a m
supports us
category a
informatio
by backgro
longer link
tools. The
Fig
loomp is a
single back
the right m
Summary
We exami
assigning a
(e.g., icons
identified;
styles. How
main probl
they typica
The exam
correspond
annotation
possible). T
been evalu
mobile touris
sers in the sem
re then stored
n in this categ
ound patterns
ked to the com
interface was
gure 9: TIP imp
Web-based e
kground colou
margin. Overla
ined several t
a background
s). In contrast,
the most freq
wever, only fe
lem is distingu
ally use the sa
mined tools
ding atoms. A
ns and atoms.
To the best of
uated for their
st information
mantic mark-u
d separately to
gory. In the im
s (see Figure
mplete text, TI
evaluated in a
port service – tex
ditor for creat
ur for highligh
apping atoms a
tools for anno
colour. Only
, no common
quent techniqu
ew tools prov
uishing overla
me style).
typically ap
Additionally,
All tools po
f our knowled
ease of use (b
n system [Hi
up of texts. Th
o be available
mport service,
9). Because
IP avoids som
a simple pape
ext annotations (
ting semantic
ghting annotat
are currently n
otating texts.
few change th
approach for
ques are mixed
vide a clear vi
apping atoms
pply similar
a mouse-over
osition annota
dge, none of t
beyond a simp
in09]. Its info
he text snippet
e should a use
overlapping
the use of th
me of the disp
er prototype st
(left) and conce
annotations i
ions and anno
not supported
Almost all t
he font style o
indicating ove
d background
sualization of
of the same c
visualizatio
r effect may
ations near th
the tools and a
ple study repor
ormation imp
ts within each
er be intereste
annotations ar
he final annot
lay issues fac
udy.
ept structure (rig
n texts [Luc09
otations are di
(except adjac
ools highligh
or add graphic
erlapping atom
d colours and
f overlapping
ategory of ann
ns to annot
highlight cor
he related ato
annotation int
rted in [Hsi08
port service
h annotation
ed in tourist
re indicated
tation is no
ced by other
ght)
9]. It uses a
isplayed on
cent ones).
ht atoms by
cal elements
ms could be
mixed font
atoms. The
notation (as
otation and
rresponding
oms (where
terfaces has
8].)
1054
4 Imp
The imple
visualisatio
features w
texts such
texts (not m
lines. The
annotation
categories
subcategor
We explor
implement
atom withi
colour of
purple=his
are highlig
speech bub
atom in a
category o
and the an
relationshi
may overla
portion of
Semantic a
technologi
with both i
phase, par
During the
longer text
decisions i
Each study
plementatio
mented syste
on of text at
were included
as the ones u
multi-media o
system needs
n sets (such as
had to be co
ries.
Figure 10: B
red the two a
ted as simple
in the text is
f the bar r
story). The ba
ghted by a mou
bble near the
coloured fra
of the annotati
nnotation appe
ps between at
ap or be adjac
text was restri
annotations ar
es. We theref
interfaces (alt
rticipants fami
e application
t. The partici
in interaction
y concluded w
on and Stud
m was purpo
toms and the
to make the
used in TIP an
objects), wher
s support for
s expressed b
nsidered; how
Bar layout
alternatives of
prototypes us
indicated by
reflects the
ars are ordered
use-over of th
atom. The bo
ame (Figure 1
ion. The back
ears as a spee
toms and anno
cent (see Sect
icted to three
re meant to b
fore observed
ternatively sta
iliarized them
phase, they h
pants were en
with the proto
with a guided i
dy Setup
ose-built to ex
eir linkage to
system suitab
nd loomp. The
re annotations
categories, th
by different o
wever, each c
f bar layout a
sing HTML a
a vertical ba
annotation
d by length an
he correspondi
order layout h
11), where th
kground colou
ech bubble. B
otations, and f
tion 2). The n
and the numb
be created by
d 12 non-exer
arting with ba
mselves with t
had to execut
ncouraged to
otype, instead
interview.
xplore two la
o annotations
ble for annota
e main usage
s may span ov
hat is, be able
ntologies). O
category may
Figure 1
and border lay
and JavaScript
ar in the left m
concept (e.g
nd order in th
ing bar and th
highlights ann
he colour corr
ur of an atom
Both layouts a
for atoms to s
number of atom
ber of categori
non-experts w
rt participants
ar or border la
the system usi
te a number o
think out lou
d of asking for
yout alternati
. The follow
ations of tour
scenario is an
ver a few wor
to explicitly
nly a limited
have several
11: Border Layo
yout. Both la
t. In the bar la
margin (Figur
g., orange=a
he text. Atoms
e annotations
notations by en
responds to th
changes on m
allow for man
span several li
ms overlappin
ies to four.
with respect t
s (P1 to P12)
ayout). During
ing a short pr
of annotation
ud as they we
r the ‘correct’
ives for the
wing design
rism-related
nnotation of
rds or some
distinguish
number of
(up to ten)
out
ayouts were
layout, each
re 10). The
architecture,
s in the text
appear as a
nclosing an
the selected
mouse-over
ny-to-many
ines. Atoms
ng the same
to semantic
interacting
g a learning
ractice text.
n tasks on a
were making
’ procedure.
1055
5 Stud
We here br
Atom defi
Three part
particular,
annotate `
Restricting
meaningfu
acceptable
(e.g., the n
create cros
on semanti
Layout an
the bars’ p
definitely
some bars
(depending
She addit
depending
the bars to
largest to
smallest to
People wh
that it wou
belonging
design was
text.
Interactio
annotation
text were a
left to find
of the 12 p
thought it
click the ri
borders. Th
Clarity of
interview,
clearly arra
equivalent
agreed and
This indica
dy Results a
riefly summar
inition: All 1
ticipants noted
P3 wished to
`Beton’ (Eng
g selections t
ul atoms but i
atoms. Two
name `Daniel
ss-references b
ic annotations
nd ordering o
position in the
on the left-h
s to the left a
g on the posi
tionally sugg
on length or
o be ordered b
smallest (Fig
o largest (Figu
ho preferred o
uld be easier
to the small
s clearer whe
n with bars a
ns. During ann
already annota
d out what wa
participants fe
was not quite
ight border” (
hree were und
f layout: On a
6 mainly agr
anged.” (1/2/3
question abou
d 2 partially a
ates that partic
and Discus
rise the main f
2 participants
d that it was
o select `Libes
gl: concrete)
to whole wo
in this cases
participants (P
Libeskind’ a
between atom
s.
of bars: 11 o
left-hand ma
and side!”).
and others to
tion of the at
gested placing
category. All
by length. Sev
gure 12, top),
ure 12, bottom
ordering large
to identify th
ler bars. The
en the longer
and borders:
notating, they
ated. P8 remar
as already ann
lt it was very
e easy, as the
(P9). P10 exp
decided.
a 5-point Liker
reed and 4 agr
3 started with
ut the clarity o
agreed (4/1/1
cipants seem t
ssion
findings of ou
s found it eas
not possible
skind’ (as par
within `Be
ords was sup
prevented th
P2, P10) wish
and the profe
ms was also ob
of 12 participa
argin (P5: “Ne
P4 suggested
o the right of
tom within ea
g bars left
l participants
ven suggested
, four sugges
m); one was in
est to smalle
he lines of tex
e other group
bars were clo
All participan
used the mou
rked: “I do no
notated and wh
easy to identi
atom’s space
ected that he
rt scale, 2 par
reed partially
the bar layout
of the border
started with
to prefer the b
ur user study.
sy to select te
to select lette
rt of Libeskind
tonstehlen’ w
pposed to m
he creation of
hed to correla
ssion `archite
bserved in ano
ants liked
eeds to be
d placing
f the text
ach line).
or right
preferred
d ordering
sted from
ndecisive.
st argued
xt (atoms)
p felt the
ose to the
nts interacted
use-over to id
ot like that I al
hat not.” Usin
ify the catego
e may be very
could extend
ticipants comp
with the stat
t; 1/4/1 with th
layout, 6 com
bar layout; 2/
border layout.
F
ext atoms for
ers or parts of
d-Bau), and P
with category
make it easier
f what would
te atoms with
ect’). A simila
other study we
successfully w
entify which p
lways have to
ng the border
ry of an anno
y small and it
an atom by d
pletely agreed
tement “the ba
he border layo
mpletely agree
/3/1 with bord
igure 12: Order
annotation.
f words. In
P5 aimed to
y material.
r to create
d have been
h each other
ar desire to
e performed
with the bar
parts of the
o look to the
layout four
otation. Five
t is “hard to
dragging its
d during the
ar layout is
out). On the
ed, 4 mainly
der layout).
ring of bars
1056
During the study it was noted that overlapping annotations constitute a considerate
proportion of all created annotations (used by 8 of 12; up to 30% of all annotations). In
the guided interviews, we observed that the participants saw the bar layout to be more
suitable for annotating larger text passages because many (small) bars on the left side
potentially make the interface less clear. Participants also found that the bar layout was
somewhat imprecise as atoms are only identified by line but not by position in each line.
However, the bar layout was found to be well suited for reading and annotating since
texts themselves do not contain any highlighting.
Participants found the border layout to be more suited for annotating short text passages
because they could easily recognize the atoms, and the relationship between atoms and
annotations was clear. However, participants noted that users may get confused by the
borders if they are confronted with too many atoms.
6 Conclusion and Future Work
The success and rapid uptake of Web 2.0 concepts was largely due to and driven by the
availability of applications for non-expert users (i.e., users with little knowledge about
Web technologies). We believe that the success of the Semantic Web similarly depends
on the availability of applications for non-expert users (i.e., users with little knowledge
about semantic concepts and technologies). Many semantic web researchers focus on
creating applications for producing and consuming semantically enriched content.
However, only few ensure the usability of their user interfaces for the large group of
non-expert users.
In this paper we present our analysis of visual tools for creating annotations and describe
the results of an initial user study on the highlighting of annotations. The results of our
study form a first step towards formulating recommendations and best-practice examples
for the design of annotation systems with manual components.
The indication of overlapping annotations was identified as the main issue for
visualisation of annotations. None of the tools and annotation interfaces had been
previously evaluated for their ease of use. In our user study, two layout alternatives for
the visualisation of text atoms and their linkage to annotations. Our user study confirmed
that overlapping annotations constitute a considerate proportion of all created
annotations. They were identified as part of a typical annotation process and should not
be treated as special cases. The border layout supports clear identification of overlapping
annotations, whereas their identification is more complicated in the bar layout. We also
found that the bar layout is more suitable for annotating larger text passages whereas the
border layout is more suitable for annotating words and short passages. We therefore
recommend that systems should implement two views on annotated texts: One view for
unhindered reading, a quick overview of the text and locating atoms and annotations at a
glance (e.g., bar layout) and another one for creating annotations in the text and
retrieving detailed information about the annotated text passages (e.g., border layout).
1057
The work presented in this paper considered mainly the visualisation of (simple
semantic) annotations (e.g., assigning a category). However, full semantic mark-up
requires the additional assignment of semantic identifiers. The understanding of complex
semantic annotations (e.g., assigning and interpreting the linkage to resources) by non-
expert users is more complicated and needs to be explored further. Moreover, so far only
annotations created by single users were analysed. The concurrent annotation of texts by
a group of users (e.g., in a crowd-sourcing approach) will most likely lead to more
overlapping and potentially contradicting annotations. Appropriate resolution of these
cases still needs further research.
References
[Hin09] Annika Hinze, Agnès Voisard, George Buchanan: Tip: Personalizing Information
Delivery in a Tourist Information System. Journal of IT & Tourism 11(3): 247-264, 2009
[Hsi08] Ping-Ju Hsieh. Administration Service for the Tourist Information System. Master’s
thesis, Computer Science Department, The University of Waikato, June 2008, available
online at http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2478.
[Luc09] Markus Luczak-Rösch and Ralf Heese. Linked data authoring for non-experts. In
Proceedings of the Linked Data on the Web Workshop (co-located to WWW’2009).
LNCS, March 2009
[Muh94] Thomas Muhr. ATLAS.ti: Ein Werkzeug für die Textinterpretation. In Schriften zur
Informationswissenschaft, pp 317-324. Univ.-Verlag Konstanz, 1994.
1058