- From: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:33:41 -0800
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@gmail.com>, Martin G. Skjæveland <martige@ifi.uio.no>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAN9Aifu0ReL6BfkWhB24_F5VdhvC45LiKF34WwYd6novi_Th-g@mail.gmail.com>
If anyone is interested, we have started exploring the relationship between shapes and template-based RDF/OWL generation here: https://github.com/INCATools/dead_simple_owl_design_patterns/issues/51 Some of this is a bit specific to our project, and the frameworks we use (DOSDPs for templates, ShEx for shapes) -- but there may be general principles that apply to e.g. relationship between OTTR and SHACL On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:24 PM Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov> wrote: > AFAIK shape languages can't be used in a generative capacity. OTTR seems > more in the family of templating languages such as OPPL[1], ROBOT > templates[2], or Dead Simple OWL Design Paterns[3] > > [1] https://github.com/owlcs/OPPL2 > [2] http://robot.obolibrary.org/template R.C. Jackson, J.P. Balhoff, E. > Douglass, N.L. Harris, C.J. Mungall, and J.A. Overton. ROBOT: A tool for > automating ontology workflows. BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 20, July 2019. > https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1186/s12859-019-3002-3 > [3] Dead Simple OWL Design Patterns David Osumi-Sutherland, Melanie > Courtot, James P. Balhoff and Christopher Mungall Journal of Biomedical > Semantics 2017 8:18 DOI:10.1186/s13326-017-0126-0 > https://jbiomedsem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13326-017-0126-0 > > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 1:45 AM Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > >> >> Or, for that matter, ShEx? >> https://shex.io/ >> >> A good comparison could help clarify the entire design space. >> >> (academics looking for good semweb topics for students, please take note!) >> >> On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 05:59, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> or SHACL? >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#sparql-constraint-components >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-af/ >>> >>> >>> >>> - simon >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019, 09:09 Martynas Jusevičius, <martynas@atomgraph.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Martin, >>>> >>>> how does OTTR compare to SPIN templates? >>>> https://spinrdf.org/spin.html#spin-templates >>>> >>>> >>>> Martynas >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 5:02 AM Martin G. Skjæveland < >>>> martige@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > >>>> > Lutra, the open source reference implementation of OTTR templates, is >>>> > now available in release version 0.6. >>>> > >>>> > OTTR (Reasonable Ontology Templates) allows RDF/OWL modelling patterns >>>> > to be precisely defined and instantiated and support desirable >>>> modelling >>>> > principles such as >>>> > >>>> > - layered abstractions >>>> > - encapsulating complexity >>>> > - uniform modelling >>>> > - DRY don't repeat yourself >>>> > - separation of design and content >>>> > >>>> > Lutra and OTTR supports many convenient language constructs: >>>> > - nested template definitions >>>> > - typing system adapted to RDF and OWL >>>> > - optional arguments >>>> > - list arguments >>>> > and support bulk loading data from spreadsheets and databases. >>>> > >>>> > To see and learn what this means, visit the project page: >>>> > http://ottr.xyz and the primer http://spec.ottr.xyz/pOTTR/0.1/ >>>> > containing many interactive examples. >>>> > >>>> > If you are attending ISWC 2019, please come to our tutorial "Scalable >>>> > construction of sustainable knowledge bases" tomorrow, Saturday >>>> October >>>> > 26: http://ottr.xyz/event/2019-10-267-iswc/ >>>> > >>>> > On behalf of the OTTR team, >>>> > Martin >>>> > >>>> >>>>
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2019 22:34:00 UTC