Re: OWL2 serialized as JSON?

Remember this thread?

It stirred a bit of discussion regarding the relative merits of a direct
serialization of OWL2 into JSON vs indirect via RDF. Probably somewhat
academic, as here we are some time later and there don't seem to be many
people publicly shunting around OWL as JSON. I have a translation I have
been using for internal purposes but would like to abandon it in favor of
something more standard.

I have shifted somewhat in the direction of an RDF-oriented solution. IMany
of the OWL class axioms I work with tend to generate fairly verbose RDF
(and consequently JSON derived from this). However, it's likely that *any*
translation to JSON will likely be ugly for my axioms.

It seems JSON-LD has been gaining traction, and has nice features for avoid
verbosity. Is there any move to have a standard @context (perhaps served
from a standard URL) for OWL 2? Rather than having an abstract discussion
about relative merits it might help to see some concrete examples of
ontologies of varying levels of complexity translated to JSON and compacted
as JSON-LD. I'm particularly interested in any JSON-LD tricks could be used
for a more compact encoding of axiom annotations.



On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Apr 7, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Hi Bijan. How is this progressing?
>
> I've written some code on top of the OWL API that generates json from
> either expressions or axioms. The resulting json is fairly generic and
> loosely corresponds to OWL-XML. Anything that is not a URI or a literal is
> translated to a hash with a "type" key that maps to the axiom or expression
> type, and an "args" arr. This is mostly for internal purposes write now -
> I'd like to adopt whatever de facto standard there is out there.
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Bijan.
> >
>
>