RE: [ALL] Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments

If this is true, then it covers OWL-DL and OWL-Lite, presumably.

Jeremy: you said that there are problems with trying to do this with OWL-Full. Can you give a simple example that shows the problem?

Also, I'm happy to accept the simple fact that different people do prefer different syntaxes for various reasons, ranging from what they are familiar with, to what particular purpose/context they are concerned with, to just a simple 'how their brain works' personal preference.

Hopefuly we can agree then on a small number of syntaxes to use. One reader-friendly version for people shocked by too many angle brackets, and the RDF/XML one.  There are lots of graphical possibilties, but lets not go there!


 -----Original Message-----
From: []  On Behalf Of Sean Bechhofer
Sent:	Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:30 AM
To:	Frank van Harmelen
Subject:	Re: [ALL]  Human-friendly syntax for communicating OWL fragments

Frank van Harmelen wrote:

  > PS: it would be a great service to the community if anybody wrote an
> AS-to-RDF/XML convertor (Sean Bechhofer has already done the inverse 
> (and much harder) direction, at [3])

 > [3] <>

Well, we've actually done the other way round too! But it was still a 
little tricky as it needed some firming up of the abstract syntax so we 
could put it through a parser generator. Details of the grammar we used 
are at [1]. If this is at all useful, I can add this functionality to 
the Validator...



Sean Bechhofer

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 19:02:27 UTC