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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:13:23 -0800
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902040413kb8e5cdx9eaea946324b6e10@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

>> I honestly don't see the point of the format without this.
>
> Hmm.  Given that the format is already in use, I don't see how this
> point of view can be sustained.

Here is how I see the situation. The predominant use of the Manchester
syntax currently is editing within protege. Within Protege what I call
quotedLabels are consistently available for input and display. One of
the largest communities that currently uses OWL is the biomedical
ontology community. Within that community it is considered best
practice to use opaque URIs as identifiers (e.g. OBO, MeSH, UMLS).
People used to working with those ontologies in Protege uniformly work
in views that use labels. The Manchester Syntax, as solely an exchange
syntax, offers no additional benefit because there are other viable
exchange syntaxes. In order that it be worth having another syntax, it
must bring some additional value. Historically that value has been
that it is human readable and editable. It isn't if it can't be edited
using human readable labels for entities.

-Alan
(In case there is any doubt, speaking as WG member, not chair)
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:13:59 GMT