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

Re: Proposal for use of labels in Manchester Syntax ISSUE-146, ACTION-247

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:50:19 +0000
Message-Id: <5BC4EBF5-6346-4DA9-812E-C2DC710C3683@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On 3 Feb 2009, at 23:57, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 2009/2/3 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>:
>> On 3 Feb 2009, at 20:15, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> That there is a choice of labels is due to a request by Alan Rector.
>>> The motivation for a choice of language should be clear.
>>
>> Choice? I don't get this.
>
> The labels: keyword says which annotation property can be used for a
> quoted label. One might suggest that only rdfs:label be used for
> labels but Alan said he wants to be able to use other properties, for
> example skos:prefLabel
>
> Similarly, one might want to be able to choose that labels used in
> rendering to manchester syntax are ones in a particular language.

This all seems to be tool level rather than language level. Why put  
this in the format?

Swoop allowed one to configure the display based on lang tag. Easy to  
make it for property as well. Easy to share config files.

It requires a bit more work for text editors, but it's not so hard.

>> [snip]
>>
>>> Labels with highest precedence are associated with IRIs by being  
>>> added
>>> to LabelToIRI. The order of precedence is:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> My instinct right there is to say, "non starter".
>>
>> I have no idea why there's an order of precedence for this  
>> feature. It seems like a very, very bad idea.
>
> Without a precedence ordering the mapping can be ambiguous. Even with
> it, it can, but less often.

Er...that makes me think that this is not a finished proposal. It  
seems to be a minimal requirement that a mapping be unambiguous in  
all cases.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 10:46:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 February 2009 10:46:51 GMT