- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:48:24 -0500
- To: "Sean Bechhofer" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Sean Bechhofer wrote: > > We've been trying to build a streaming parser, but this is proving > difficult with OWL represented as RDF triples. Given an OWL-RDF ontology, > the various triples that make up any expression or assertion could be > scattered liberally throughout the document, so even if I try and build > things in a streaming fashion, there's a load of stuff that I'm going to > have to cache or remember or make assumptions about and clean up later. Yep. Though the idea about using RDF/XML as the exchange syntax for OWL is that you ought not need to write your own OWL parser ... you pick or write an RDF/XML parser. Now you can always develop a specialized presentation syntax for OWL that is optimized for a particular application ... do you find the same issues with the OWL XML syntax? > > If we're talking about the kinds of example model that we've seen in > things like the test sets, this is, of course, not an issue. Just build > the data structure. Big deal. But what happens when I've got an ontology > with 10^8 concepts/individuals in it and I want to do some simple > processing on it, that doesn't necessarily warrant me building the whole > data structure? That would be called a database :-)) > > <flippant> > An analogy that springs to mind is that it's like building a model of the > eiffel tower out of matchsticks. Except that what's happened is that > someone's done it already, labelled each pair of touching ends of each > matchstick with a unique number, dismantled it, and then given it to you > in a box saying "what do you think that is then?". > </flippant> > > Ok, perhaps an over-exaggeration, but it's what it feels like sometimes. > I think by "parser" you really mean that you are looking for an algorithm that can iterate over a sequence of RDF triples and match the productions in the OWL Abstract Syntax. That is an interesting issue. If I were doing that, I'd look for a transform that would reorder/rearrange the sequence of triples to allow a "one pass" algorithm to match OWL productions. We might call such a transform some type of "normalization" of a given triple store or ordered knowledge base. If it were possible to develop such an algorithm it would be a terrific candidate for an OWL "canonocalization" -- I expect that this work item won't make the list for the current WG given time constraints :-( Jonathan
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 16:48:31 UTC