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

Readability of OWL (Was: Some advice on inferring negated properties)

From: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:21:58 +0100
Message-ID: <46C55AA6.2070502@cancer.org.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: "Swanson, Tim" <tim.swanson@semanticarts.com>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Just to pick up Tim's point, human readability of OWL is important.

Protege4 (and therefore ?OWLAPI) now saves ontologies in lovely 
separated little blocks, with comments to help guide you. IMHO, it makes 
it much easier to read the ontology (which I have found useful when 
trying to debug problems).

Matt

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Swanson, Tim wrote:
> 
>> Bijan,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. I found it enlightening to say the least. I
>> haven't kept up to date on the developing features of OWL 1.1. We
>> probably won't use it in-house until it reaches the recommendation
>> stage.
> 
> Oh, I'd expect that for production systems, CR will probably be stable 
> enough. (CR is likely to be short given the wealth of implementation 
> experience we already have.) Much of the futzing now is around the edges 
> and on some aspects of syntax.
> 
> If there are OWL 1.1 features you would find valuable, it's worth 
> telling the proposed initial team contacts and/or proposed initial 
> chairs of the proposed working group (I so propose):
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter
> 
> Sandro is probably the best person to contact.
> 
>> However, I do follow the discussions on this list, and feel that
>> the standard will be good. It already incorporates a lot of the problems
>> that we've encountered trying to data model using OWL.
> 
> Great! That's valuable information.
> [snip]
>>> That's one way. (OWL 1.1 lets you do others.) I mentioned it in my
>>> email:
>>>     """ClassAssertion(a, ObjectComplementOf (ObjectHasValue(P,
>>> b)))""""
>>>
>>
>> This was an addition I wasn't aware of.
> 
> That's just the new functional syntax, which is axiom oriented rather 
> than frame oriented, and fully explicitly typed, rather than somewhat 
> implicitly typed.
> 
> NegativeClassAssertion is the strictly new syntax (although it is sugar 
> for the nominal form you were using).
> 
>>> From a modeling standpoint, ObjectComplementOf is great. While you can
>> imitate it, it requires brute force and/or preprocessing in all but the
>> most trivial cases (such as the one outlined above).
> 
> Ah, that's the class one. I.e., ObjectComplementOf is just the old 
> complementOf. However, there *is* both property *assertion* negation;
>     NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion
> (which is like the hasValue encoding...it negates a *specific* object 
> property relation) AND property disjointness:
> 
>     <http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html#6.2>
>     DisjointObjectProperties
> 
> Which, well, at this time at night at least, I don't see can be 
> paraphrased into oldOWL. Hmm. Ok if you did some disjoint ranging and 
> domaining, that would entail disjoint properties.
> 
>> Is a complement property a full-fledged property (as an object class is
>> a full-fledged class)?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Can you add subproperties to it, for instance?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> There are restricted property chains as well, i.e., property composition.
> 
>> This would result in a much richer property model
> 
> Yep. Properties are *much* enhanced in OWL 1.1. A property chain example 
> (from Galen):
> 
> <rdf:Description>
>         <rdf:type rdf:resource="&rdf;List"/>
>         <rdf:first rdf:resource="#hasLocation"/>
>         <rdf:rest rdf:parseType="Collection">
>             <rdf:Description rdf:about="#isLayerOf"/>
>         </rdf:rest>
> 
>         <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#hasLocation"/>
>     </rdf:Description>
> 
> i.e.,
> 
> if x hasLocation y and y isLayerOf z, then x hasLocation z.
> 
>> and, as an ardent OWA
>> fan, would all by itself make OWL 1.1 worth the price of admission in my
>> opinion.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> [snip]
>>> (It's a a bit less pleasant in RDF/XML as you have to reify...here's
>>> hoping for better solutions. The abstract syntax and the XML syntax
>>> aren't so bad.
>>>
>>
>> I've noticed a tendency in the hardcore OWL/RDF community to focus on
>> both OWL and RDF as abstract data models, and to view the output as a
>> low-level representation that's only of interest to machines.
> 
> I guess I'm not in the hardcore OWL/RDF community :)
> 
>> (The
>> debate on this list over using tools vs. text editors in relation to
>> "declaredAs" underscores this point.) While this is technically correct,
>> it is not the whole story.
>>
>> We use RDF/OWL as a messaging format in distributed systems. As such, we
>> use the RDF/XML format exclusively. (This is why I gave my example above
>> in that format; it's only one I have a confident competence with.) While
>> the messages are certainly generated and consumed by machines,
>> developers need to be able to look at them during testing and debugging.
> 
> Yep.
> 
>> In a development environment, it is often helpful to be able to not only
>> read, but also write, small snippets of RDF/OWL. A readable syntax is a
>> must in this case. (Note that it does not need to be intuitive, merely
>> readable and learnable.)
> 
> Yep, and this is different for different user types.
> 
>> Obviously, things like serialization are best tackled /after/ the
>> abstract syntax is finalized, but as you go forward, I implore to not to
>> ignore issues like readable serialization. (For the record, I like
>> RDF/XML just fine except for rdf:ID, and the OWL 1.0 RDF serialization
>> is pretty good too.)
> 
> The RDF Mapping is still being developed, but backward compatibility 
> with OWL/RDF is a strong goal. Some things are just hard (e.g., axiom 
> annotations).
> 
> There is also an XML syntax:
>     http://webont.org/owl/1.1/xml_syntax.html
> 
> (ergh...have to clean up the examples). If you use a default namespace, 
> it's pretty decent (and basically a transliteration of the functional 
> syntax:
> 
> <SubObjectPropertyOf>
>         <SubObjectPropertyChain>
>                 <ObjectProperty owl:URI="#owns"/>
>                 <ObjectProperty owl:URI="#has_part"/>
>          </SubObjectPropertyChain>
>          <ObjectProperty owl11xml:URI="#owns"/>
>   </SubObjectPropertyOf>
> 
> Now, I think with a slight redesign we could get ride of some of those 
> inner types and get closer to:
> 
>     SubObjectPropertyOf(SubObjectPropertyChain(owns, has_part), owns).
> But I digress :)
> 
> One of my reasons for wanting a "plainer" XML syntax is precisely for 
> web services contexts where the XML oddities of RDF/XML are a huge 
> barrier.)
> 
> [snip]
>> I've seen a lot of teeth gnashing, hair pulling sort of discussions on
>> this list, and I thought it may help to know that there are those of us
>> out there who are fans of your collective work and are eagerly awaiting
>> the completed standard.
> 
> That's gratifying. Thanks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 

-- 
http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
+44 (0)7834 899570
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 08:22:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT