W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [hcls] User interfaces for writing / querying RDF: Leeet

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:51 -0400
Message-Id: <DA153DED-D237-423E-AA29-EF317F57A812@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>

Matthias (and others). Why not help out with the OWL macro task force  
which was an offshoot of the last OWLED. The idea is to define a  
macro language for OWL, i.e. a way of defining expansions from  
compact expressions to more complicated OWL expressions.

http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/MacrosAndSyntax

In other words, instead of coming up with a single way of saying some  
subset of OWL DL in simpler triples, define a language for creating  
such mappings.

-Alan

On Sep 12, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Matthias Samwald wrote:

>
>
>> Note that it's impossible to answer the intended query above without
>> SPARQL-DL - and the most intuitive syntax for this kind of query in
>> SPARQL-DL may not be triple-based, cosmeticised or not. E.g. "ALL
>> astrocyte develops_from SOME ?"
>>
>> I am heavily biased towards TBox queries - for ABox queries, a
>> syntactic patina over SPARQL may be very welcome.
>
> At the moment I am thinking about ways of expressing subsets of OWL DL
> in a way that is more easily mapped to the RDF triple model. I simply
> cannot accept how complicated and sometimes unintuitive the
> representation of certain OWL constructs in RDF is, although I really
> tried to. For example, we could have a convention that the triple
> "Class1 property1 Class2" could be interpreted as as 'some values  
> from'
> restriction. Of course, not all of OWL could be represented in such a
> simplified RDF format (e.g., how would we represent 'all values  
> from'?).
>
> Yes, I know that we can create OWL APIs and dedicated OWL query
> languages to make it work. However, I think that technologies should
> have a certain 'elegance' to find widespread adoption. If we look at
> some of our HCLS ontologies, we are seeing a XML document that
> represents a RDF graph in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone
> way. And if we look at the RDF graph we see that it represents an OWL
> ontology in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone way. A
> developer that is new to all these technologies might get the  
> impression
> that the Semantic Web layer cake [1] is just a heap of bad compromises
> and failed attempts of creating compatibility.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W3c-semantic-web-layers.svg
>
> cheers,
> Matthias Samwald
>
>
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 03:54:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:09:36 UTC