- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:13:23 -0800
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
>> I honestly don't see the point of the format without this. > > Hmm. Given that the format is already in use, I don't see how this > point of view can be sustained. Here is how I see the situation. The predominant use of the Manchester syntax currently is editing within protege. Within Protege what I call quotedLabels are consistently available for input and display. One of the largest communities that currently uses OWL is the biomedical ontology community. Within that community it is considered best practice to use opaque URIs as identifiers (e.g. OBO, MeSH, UMLS). People used to working with those ontologies in Protege uniformly work in views that use labels. The Manchester Syntax, as solely an exchange syntax, offers no additional benefit because there are other viable exchange syntaxes. In order that it be worth having another syntax, it must bring some additional value. Historically that value has been that it is human readable and editable. It isn't if it can't be edited using human readable labels for entities. -Alan (In case there is any doubt, speaking as WG member, not chair)
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:13:58 UTC