W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:15:03 -0400
Message-Id: <9AED650B-9AD2-43E2-AD25-8208042D62BA@gmail.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

At the meeting today the sentiment seemed to be that  a) This needed  
to be looked at more closely b) but not necessarily before this round  
(mark it in sotd) and c) people liked the idea of pluggable syntax  
for the primer - supply a translator via some reasonable api and your  
syntax too can show up in the primer.


On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> so we would be creating as a WG the manchester serialization, the  
> formal syntax, and the XML serialization as three new ways to write  
> OWL.  Seems to me we should pick two at most (with the XML being  
> one of them for the reasons Bijan argues on last week's call - i.e.  
> compatibility with the XML world)
>  -JH
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> Subject: General discussion for TC Wednesday
>> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:16:59 -0400
>> [...]
>>> An issue I know to be outstanding re: the Primer is the use of
>>> Manchester syntax. Please give some thought to whether you think  
>>> this is
>>> a good or bad idea, and why and be prepared to defend your position.
>> [...]
>>> -Alan
>> Three chunks of information about the "Manchester Syntax".
>> 1/ There is a paper at OWLED2008DC describing the current Manchester
>>   syntax.  There was also a paper on the original Manchester  
>> syntax at
>>   OWLED2006.
>> 2/ There is no bar to making the Manchester syntax be a WG note.  In
>>   fact, I have put a copy of the Manchester syntax document in the WG
>>   wiki at
>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
>> 3/ The examples in the primer are rendered in four different  
>> syntaxes,
>>   Manchester, Functional-Style, OWL XML, and RDF/XML.  Each can be
>>   turned on and off separately.  Protege 4 was used to generate the
>>   different syntaxes, starting from the same ontology in Protege 4.
>>   The complete ontologies are on the WG Wiki at
>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PrimerExampleManchester
>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PrimerExampleFunctional
>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PrimerExampleOWLXML
>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/PrimerExampleRDFXML
>>   However, the versions in the document have be extensively  
>> edited, and
>>   also modified to fix several bugs in Protege 4.  The probably would
>>   not read back into Protege 4 or any other OWL 1.1 tool.  (If you do
>>   try this and can fix the files, please do so, but only if you also
>>   change the Primer document itself.)  Before final publication the
>>   examples will have to be fixed to be completely correct.
>> peter
>> PS: I *finally* found something that works well in the Wiki!  (Quel
>>    surprise!) The Primer includes the ontology files by pointing to
>>    them, so there need not be two copies of the full ontologies.  I
>>    hope that this doesn't cause Sandro too many problems if and when
>>    the Primer is published.
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 05:15:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC