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

Re: OWL2 serialized as JSON?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:08:20 -0500
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch, Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Eric <eric@w3.org>
Message-Id: <13103DF1-B7C0-4818-A7A6-3F6FA9024163@ihmc.us>
To: nathan@webr3.org

On Apr 23, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Nathan wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2011, at 08:33, Jerven Bolleman wrote:
>>> Hi Chris, All,
>>> I have the feeling that you are going about this the wrong way round.
>>> I would first write a compelling JS api to deal with OWL concepts. And later if necessary design an optimized serialization format.
>> Actually this is pretty close to what I proposed to do.
>> The structure spec defines a quite nice API for OWL ontologies:
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/
>> (The Manchester OWL API adheres to this.)
>> The XML Serialization mirrors this closely:
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/
>> All other serializations (Manchester Syntax, RDF syntax) have a mapping to the abstract model.
>> Although there are some issues with things for serialization (e.g., prefixes). I'll try to separate these out (as I'm currently doing for XML).
>> Thus, the idea is to produce something close to this (with perhaps a few tweaks) so that, e.g., the structural spec serves as documentation for the API.
>> I would generally recommend this as the preferred way to handle additional mappings and concrete formats. That was certainly the intent of the design.
> So, things I can see on the cards:
> - JSON serialization of OWL 2
> - WebIDL API (targeting Javascript and Java)
> - OWL 2 (perhaps a subset of) merging with JSON-Schema
> - RDF (perhaps a subset of) merging with JSON
> Pretty much focussed at bringing the real core benefits of the semantic web, linked data, owl to the masses.
> I'll jump straight to the point, I want to do the above (the heavy lifting as it were), as do some others, however would need support and guidance from members of this community.
> What do you advise, interested, prepared to turn this from a discussion to a realization?
> And one of my biggest questions, would it be good / wise to:
> a) keep a clear split with a JSON-schema-like-thing that's viewable/usable as OWL, and a JSON-like-uniform-data that's viewable/usable as RDF?
> b) keep a clear split with a conversion of OWL to JSON-OWL, and RDF to JSON-RDF?
> c) have everything merged in one kind of JSON serialization?
> d) something else?
> The RDF WG has already headed in the direction of B with JSON-RDF, and the bulk of this thread appears to be hinting at B as well with JSON-OWL, however I can't help thinking that perhaps the unwashed masses of the web needs something more like A. I'd be happy to work on either/both, but will probably end up focussing on A, and that's where my general drive is at the moment.

For myself, I would need to know more about what you mean by this JSON-thing being "usable as OWL". OWL use is really only constrained by OWL entailment: you can do anything that makes sense with respect to the OWL semantics. (Or, put another way, whatever thing you do with the OWL, what that thing means is determined by the OWL semantics. You are of course free to do nonsensical things, but you can't legitimately pretend they are sensical.) How would such an essentially semantic constraint cash out in the JSON world? 


> Best,
> Nathan

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 24 April 2011 02:09:35 UTC

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