- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:56:08 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: > I don't know what you are asking for here. > > It is true that annotations interfere with the flow, and thus make > ontology dumps hard to read, but what else can be done? The issue is not the annotations but rather the display of any entity that does not use a human readable URI. > I will change the "user-friendly" bit to talk explicitly about descriptions. I'd rather live up to the "user-friendly". The implementation of Manchester syntax in Protege allows the use of a label in place of a localname in expressions. The first thing I would suggest is a syntax for comments that can be embedded by tools. "//" "#" "/* .. */" ";" are common convention, but "( .. )" fit in some spots. With this a tool would be able to write, e.g. Class: obo:artifact Annotations: obo:IAO_0000116 ( editor note ) "There is not yet consensus this term", obo:IAO_0000114 ( curation status ) obo:IAO_0000124 ( uncurated ), The next level of change would allow, in the case that a rdfs:label uniquely determines the identity of a term, a tool to use the rdfs:label in place of the uri ref. Class: obo:artifact Annotations: 'editor note': "There is not yet consensus this term", 'curation status': 'uncurated', Where the label is not unique it could be qualified by the uri Class: obo:artifact Annotations: 'editor note' (obo:IAO_0000116) : "There is not yet consensus this term", 'curation status': 'uncurated', In the case that there are multiple language labels, we could leave it to the discretion of the tool to provide a mechanism for choosing a preferred language. -Alan > > From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Manchester Syntax document ready (ACTION-205) > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:00:54 -0400 > >> Hello Peter, >> >> Is there a way to have comments (not rdfs:comments) in the Manchester syntax? >> >> "The Manchester syntax is a user-friendly compact syntax for OWL 2" >> >> Here is a piece of output from an OWL ontology I am working with. >> Absent the labels, it isn't very user friendly. Perhaps we can have >> the printout use both labels and identifiers, or even labels alone, >> providing they are unique. >> >> -Alan >> >> Class: obo:artifact >> Annotations: >> obo:IAO_0000116 "There is not yet consensus this term", >> obo:IAO_0000114 obo:IAO_0000124, >> obo:IAO_0000115 "An artifact is an independent continuant that >> is the intended output of an objective driven process" >> SubClassOf: >> snap:IndependentContinuant >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote: >> > >> > In fulfillment of ACTION-205 [1], the ready-for-review version of the >> > Manchester Syntax document [2] is ready for review. >> > >> > peter >> > >> > >> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/actions/205 >> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax >
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 02:56:43 UTC