W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: OWL "Sydney Syntax", structured english

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:07:00 -0600
To: Kaarel Kaljurand <kaljurand@gmail.com>
Cc: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Anne Cregan <annec@cse.unsw.edu.au>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <1164913620.3997.1452.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 19:54 +0100, Kaarel Kaljurand wrote:
> Hello,
> On 11/30/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 19:07 +0100, Kaarel Kaljurand wrote:
> > >
> > > I just hope that the benefit of having a nice English verbalization outweighs
> > > the burden of having to apply this fix.
> >
> > Changing the URIs in an ontology is about the most burdensome thing
> > you can ask an ontology developer to do.
> Aren't there refactoring tools integrated into ontology editors?

Perhaps, but these are global names in the Web. URIs.

The cost of renaming something in the Web grows
with the number of incoming links... which grows harder to even
measure as time goes by. Consider renaming rdf:type
or foaf:mbox; that will probably never happen.

> > I think your tool will be much more useful if it exploits transitive
> > verb labels.
> That would be an easy change, but I think the round-trip requirement
> is really important. It enables the "view source" effect, i.e. one can view
> the OWL file in ACE, do some modifications (in ACE) and publish it
> again (in OWL).
> Knowing the details of ACE wouldn't be needed in many cases.

Yes, that's a good point; I didn't happen to see tools that go the
other way. I'm interested in any pointers.

> > In particular, is useless to me if as long as it requires me to change
> > the URIs in ontologies; especially since, in many cases, the ontology
> > I am interested in is not where I have any ability to change its
> > URIs. But I can always add labels (assuming your tool isn't constrained
> > to one source of data about the ontology in question).
> OK, but would you consider using verbs for properties in your next ontology
> (that you have full control over)? :)

Perhaps. There's a good chance I will try your tools on
vocabularies that I'm working with in the future, and that will keep
the issue in my mind.

But I'm pretty invested in http://esw.w3.org/topic/RoleNoun as
a best practice.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 19:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC