W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: OWL2 serialized as JSON?

From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:46:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9C5296.7020502@elbklang.net>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hi Peter,

On 4/6/2011 1:18 PM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Bob Ferris<zazi@elbklang.net>
> Subject: Re: OWL2 serialized as JSON?
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:47:20 -0500
>> Hi Chris,
>> On 4/5/2011 11:29 PM, Chris Mungall wrote:
>>> Is there a de-facto standard way of serializing OWL2 as JSON? I'm aware of RDF-over-JSON efforts, but something more OWL-centric would suit my purposes better.
>>> I recall a lightning talk at OWLED2007 that showed something like Manchester Syntax in JSON, but I don't know if this idea has advanced further. I think ideally there might be a frame-style modeled after MS (but including GCIs), and an axiom-style modeled after the functional syntax. It seems the most predictable way to do the latter would be to have a single object per axiom, and to use the non-terminals on the RHS of the production rules as names in the name-value pairs.
>>> I'm hoping someone has already provided a specification - and/or an OWLAPI implementation?
>> I'm not aware of any OWL2/JSON serialization. However, I'm wondering
>> whether this is really necessary, since OWL can be represented via the
>> knowledge representation structure RDF Model quite well. Today there are
>> multiple proposals for RDF/JSON serialization (see [1]) available and
>> the new RDF WG is working on a standard recommendation. Maybe you should
>> wait for this.
>> What are the benefits of having a separate OWL2/JSON serialization format?
>> Cheers,
>> Bob
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-Serialization-Examples
> A direct transformation from OWL axioms to JSON would be much more
> readable than first going through RDF.  There would be other advantages,
> including size.

However, then you probably confuse people even more who are trying to 
get into Semantic Web, or? If we would have two separate serializations 
formats, then you have to teach people RDF/JSON and OWL/JSON, and 
convience them from their benefits and existence. The power of RDF Model 
is that it is a knowledge representation structure for the vocabulary 
level and the instantitation level. Otherwise, you would (prefer to) use 
OWL/JSON for vocabulary level serializations and RDF/JSON for 
instatiation level serializations. Finally, the size reduction would be 
a consequence of a more complex grammar, which might be a disadvantage.


Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:46:57 UTC

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