W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Proposal for multiple syntaxes everywhere

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:37:32 -0500
Message-ID: <b6b357670902010837y66404fd5g4cce017303f74c73@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

That's a fantastic tool!

Maybe one more syntax to support: OWL 1 abstract syntax ? Swoop allows
this syntax.

Jie

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Bijan Parsia
<bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On 30 Jan 2009, at 20:47, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>
>> +1 - I must admit I was originally worried about all the syntax variants
>> until I saw a document with all of them in it - made it clear these were
>> very interoperable and was amazingly useful for cut/paste -- we should also
>> do a Web site somewhere in W3C space that links to or does all the
>> appropriate conversions -
>
> There's one hosted here:
>        http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/converter/
>
> This is the one that would be hosted in W3C space. So it's not just for XML
> conversion.
>
> Note that it's already being used by the test cases:
>        http://www.w3.org/mid/200901211431.12300.mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
> see the example:
>
>  http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/Owl2-rl-rules
> (Hmm. Gotta get the turtle in.)
>
> I think we can make the interface a bit nicer there. I favor a tab view.
>
> Note that this is the same code that drives Protege4.
>
>> I know Bijan has already mentioned the XML one, but all in one place would
>> be a good way to show these really are just different presentations, and
>> that's another way to help reduce some of the confusion (also, has anyone
>> done an OWL to OWL2 "updater" - I know some parts of that would be hard, but
>> a lot of the datatyping and such could be done easily, I'd think)
>
> The OWL API maintains all its historical parsers, so can consume OWL 1, to
> OWL 1.1, to all the changes in OWL2.
>
> OWL 1 can be parsed entirely (afaik) by a vanilla OWL 2 parser. So it's
> pretty peasy. A bit more fun woud be to have something that converted
> patterns to new syntactic sugar (e.g., lots of disjointWiths into an
> AllDisjoint).
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>



-- 
Jie
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 16:38:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 1 February 2009 16:38:10 GMT