- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:53:51 -0400
- To: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
- Cc: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>, public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Matthias (and others). Why not help out with the OWL macro task force which was an offshoot of the last OWLED. The idea is to define a macro language for OWL, i.e. a way of defining expansions from compact expressions to more complicated OWL expressions. http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/MacrosAndSyntax In other words, instead of coming up with a single way of saying some subset of OWL DL in simpler triples, define a language for creating such mappings. -Alan On Sep 12, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Matthias Samwald wrote: > > >> Note that it's impossible to answer the intended query above without >> SPARQL-DL - and the most intuitive syntax for this kind of query in >> SPARQL-DL may not be triple-based, cosmeticised or not. E.g. "ALL >> astrocyte develops_from SOME ?" >> >> I am heavily biased towards TBox queries - for ABox queries, a >> syntactic patina over SPARQL may be very welcome. > > At the moment I am thinking about ways of expressing subsets of OWL DL > in a way that is more easily mapped to the RDF triple model. I simply > cannot accept how complicated and sometimes unintuitive the > representation of certain OWL constructs in RDF is, although I really > tried to. For example, we could have a convention that the triple > "Class1 property1 Class2" could be interpreted as as 'some values > from' > restriction. Of course, not all of OWL could be represented in such a > simplified RDF format (e.g., how would we represent 'all values > from'?). > > Yes, I know that we can create OWL APIs and dedicated OWL query > languages to make it work. However, I think that technologies should > have a certain 'elegance' to find widespread adoption. If we look at > some of our HCLS ontologies, we are seeing a XML document that > represents a RDF graph in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone > way. And if we look at the RDF graph we see that it represents an OWL > ontology in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone way. A > developer that is new to all these technologies might get the > impression > that the Semantic Web layer cake [1] is just a heap of bad compromises > and failed attempts of creating compatibility. > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W3c-semantic-web-layers.svg > > cheers, > Matthias Samwald > >
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 03:54:03 UTC