| Question asked
|
The paper states that mapping relationship … The paper states that mapping relationships may vary from the more common ones (mentioned were equivalence, similarity, generalization, and specialization) to rarer ones (mentioned was has_part). However, figures 3 and 4 seem to reflect the related concepts without indicating the relationship. This seems like it could be confusing.
For example, if we map the concept TOAD as being SIMILAR to FROG, and we also map TOAD as HAVING_PART TEETH, doing a search for mappings from TOAD would bring up both FROG and TEETH. Because FROG and TEETH seem somewhat dissimilar, and without the mapping relationship included in the visual results, this may likely cause some confusion.
Would it be a good idea to include the mapping relation in such search/navigation visualizations, for clarity? ch/navigation visualizations, for clarity?
|
