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

Re: Manchester Syntax document ready (ACTION-205)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:56:08 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0809221956j2eb1aec0s6c5db659cf20980a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> I don't know what you are asking for here.
>
> It is true that annotations interfere with the flow, and thus make
> ontology dumps hard to read, but what else can be done?

The issue is not the annotations but rather the display of any entity
that does not use a human readable URI.

> I will change the "user-friendly" bit to talk explicitly about descriptions.

I'd rather live up to the "user-friendly". The implementation of
Manchester syntax in Protege allows the use of a label in place of a
localname in expressions.

The first thing I would suggest is a syntax for comments that can be
embedded by tools.
"//" "#" "/* .. */" ";" are common convention, but "( .. )" fit in some spots.
With this a tool would be able to write, e.g.

Class: obo:artifact
    Annotations:
       obo:IAO_0000116 ( editor note ) "There is not yet consensus this term",
       obo:IAO_0000114 ( curation status ) obo:IAO_0000124 ( uncurated ),


The next level of change would allow, in the case that a rdfs:label
uniquely determines the identity of a term, a tool to use the
rdfs:label in place of the uri ref.

Class: obo:artifact
    Annotations:
       'editor note': "There is not yet consensus this term",
       'curation status': 'uncurated',

Where the label is not unique it could be qualified by the uri

Class: obo:artifact
    Annotations:
       'editor note' (obo:IAO_0000116) : "There is not yet consensus this term",
       'curation status': 'uncurated',

In the case that there are multiple language labels, we could leave it
to the discretion of the tool to provide a mechanism for choosing a
preferred language.

-Alan

>
> From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Manchester Syntax document ready (ACTION-205)
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:00:54 -0400
>
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> Is there a way to have comments (not rdfs:comments) in the Manchester syntax?
>>
>> "The Manchester syntax is a user-friendly compact syntax for OWL 2"
>>
>> Here is a piece of output from an OWL ontology I am working with.
>> Absent the labels, it isn't very user friendly. Perhaps we can have
>> the printout use both labels and identifiers, or even labels alone,
>> providing they are unique.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>> Class: obo:artifact
>>     Annotations:
>>         obo:IAO_0000116 "There is not yet consensus this term",
>>         obo:IAO_0000114 obo:IAO_0000124,
>>         obo:IAO_0000115 "An artifact is an independent continuant that
>> is the intended output of an objective driven process"
>>     SubClassOf:
>>         snap:IndependentContinuant
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > In fulfillment of ACTION-205 [1], the ready-for-review version of the
>> > Manchester Syntax document [2] is ready for review.
>> >
>> > peter
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/205
>> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 02:56:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 September 2008 02:56:46 GMT