- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:54:14 +0100
- To: jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch
- Cc: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 7 Apr 2011, at 08:33, Jerven Bolleman wrote: > Hi Chris, All, > > I have the feeling that you are going about this the wrong way round. > I would first write a compelling JS api to deal with OWL concepts. And later if necessary design an optimized serialization format. Actually this is pretty close to what I proposed to do. The structure spec defines a quite nice API for OWL ontologies: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/ (The Manchester OWL API adheres to this.) The XML Serialization mirrors this closely: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/ All other serializations (Manchester Syntax, RDF syntax) have a mapping to the abstract model. Although there are some issues with things for serialization (e.g., prefixes). I'll try to separate these out (as I'm currently doing for XML). Thus, the idea is to produce something close to this (with perhaps a few tweaks) so that, e.g., the structural spec serves as documentation for the API. I would generally recommend this as the preferred way to handle additional mappings and concrete formats. That was certainly the intent of the design. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 12:54:40 UTC