- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:49:32 +0000
- To: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
- Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov> writes: > If the goal is pretty-printing, then it needs to emit labels after ##s, akin > to obo format and the behavior of the owlapi rdf/xml writer. This dictates > behavior regarding newlines for closing parentheses. > > E.g. > > SubClassOf( > Annotation( > :IAO_0000232 ## curator note > "this is a text axiom" > ) > :ZFA_0005587 ## nephron progenitor > ObjectSomeValuesFrom( > :BFO_0000050 ## part of > :ZFA_0000529 ## kidney > )) I really do start to wonder whether numeric IDs are really such a sensible idea. Still independent discussion. > If only annotations were the final argument rather than the first. > > Perhaps what we actually need is a new syntax designed from the ground > up with specific requirements in mind I really hesistate with the idea that we need yet another syntax for OWL. We do already have really quite a lot of syntaxes. > (e.g. layered on a sensible syntax like yaml, no lingering traces of > lisp, VCSable, readable, moderately hackable in a text editor, > incorporating @context ideas from JSON-LD). Of course, having said all of that, this was a large part of my intention with Tawny-OWL. It fulfils all of the requirements above except for the @context. And arguing the "lingering traces" -- it's far from lingering in for Tawny. Phil
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 09:49:57 UTC