- From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 07:18:26 -0400
- To: <zazi@elbklang.net>
- CC: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
From: Bob Ferris <zazi@elbklang.net> Subject: Re: OWL2 serialized as JSON? Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 03:47:20 -0500 > Hi Chris, > > On 4/5/2011 11:29 PM, Chris Mungall wrote: >> Is there a de-facto standard way of serializing OWL2 as JSON? I'm aware of RDF-over-JSON efforts, but something more OWL-centric would suit my purposes better. >> >> I recall a lightning talk at OWLED2007 that showed something like Manchester Syntax in JSON, but I don't know if this idea has advanced further. I think ideally there might be a frame-style modeled after MS (but including GCIs), and an axiom-style modeled after the functional syntax. It seems the most predictable way to do the latter would be to have a single object per axiom, and to use the non-terminals on the RHS of the production rules as names in the name-value pairs. >> >> I'm hoping someone has already provided a specification - and/or an OWLAPI implementation? > > I'm not aware of any OWL2/JSON serialization. However, I'm wondering > whether this is really necessary, since OWL can be represented via the > knowledge representation structure RDF Model quite well. Today there are > multiple proposals for RDF/JSON serialization (see [1]) available and > the new RDF WG is working on a standard recommendation. Maybe you should > wait for this. > What are the benefits of having a separate OWL2/JSON serialization format? > > Cheers, > Bob > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-Serialization-Examples A direct transformation from OWL axioms to JSON would be much more readable than first going through RDF. There would be other advantages, including size. peter
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:19:17 UTC