W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Comment syntax for OWL functional syntax ?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:01:15 +0000
Message-Id: <ECC11E77-706A-4FCA-8EB7-00D752C513D2@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
The simplest answer to all this is "Don't use Functional Syntax for exchange or storage". This is not an unreasonable answer, but it's probably not a satisfactory answer.

The simplest way to get this (functionally :)) changed is to submit a patch to the OWL API. Once the OWL API supports it, most things will need to follow suit :)

I would couple that with a small preprocessing script that strips out such comments.

Ideally, we'd update the OWL API to do a "best guess" job of salvaging comments from one format to another....

To address David's use case, it seems that it suffices to have rdfs:labels (and similar) and a pretty printer that munges the file in some way. If that version of the file is never passed on, then it doesn't matter if downstream parsers strip the #s

Axioms annotations can be bent to this purpose quite easily, as well, I'd warrant...

Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 13:01:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:30 UTC