W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Axiom annotations

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:32:53 +0100
Message-Id: <F37573BF-57C4-40B6-990A-E047390575B2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>

On Apr 23, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi Bijan, sorry for the late response!

No worries.

> Bijan Parsia wrote on Thu, 19 Apr 2007:
>> On Apr 19, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> But then what do you care about the "big honking chunk of   
>> reification" in your ontology? The tool will take care of it.
> Well, I said that I prefer using a tool for /editing/ ontologies. I
> experience it to be error prone and a lot of work to even create/ 
> modify
> small OWL ontologies by hand. On the other hand, I do /not/ always
> /watch/ OWL ontologies through an OWL browser. IMHO, OWL/RDF is quite
> readable, and at least for small to medium OWL ontologies like e.g.
> wine.owl or pizza.owl, I was always able to get a good overview of  
> those
> ontologies within reasonable time by just looking at the RDF/XML  
> syntax.

Sure. I think it's pretty much a lost cause in general, but I see  
where you're coming from.

To clarify, I thought the rdf:ID on property element trick did *not*  
include the asserted triple. Since it does, and since that trick  
really is critical, I have no further opposition.

> I think that good readability of at least the primary serialization
> format of OWL is an aspect, which might be of some importance, if  
> OWL is
> going to become a widely spread language for the semantic web.

Well, I think there is a pretty widespread belief that RDF/XML is  
illegible *for RDF*. Given that, I'm inclined not to worry *too*  
much. However, your amendment is quite friendly now that my confusion  
is cleared up, so I don't have any strong feelings against it.

> One last word about the ID trick that we were talking about earlier:
> This won't of course work anymore, if the RDF reification  
> vocabulary is
> /not/ being used.

Yes. Rocks and hard places and all. No systematically good choices.

Hence my preference for the XML syntax.

> But what remains is the separation between axioms and
> annotations in the RDF mapping, as mentioned above.
>> I'm loathe to use reification in general, but if we do, then  
>> given  this bit i see no reason for including both. I'm convinced  
>> enough to  suggest that you file a bug report in the owl 1.1  
>> issues list.
> I will consider to file two proposals: One for using an alternative
> reification vocabulary (not RDF reification). And another one for my
> "always spo" approach.

They are in tension :)

> But I will wait with this until this thread has
> effectively ended.

I think it has.

Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 19:33:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC