uses manchester syntax. Manchester syntax as in the spec does not
(thankfully) allows. So what you see when you serialize to Manchester
>
> In general, the choice of a particular OWL serialization should not be
> driven by readability since tools like Protege are used to display and edit
> the ontology in a user friendly way.
>
> OWL ontologies are built from an unsorted bag of axioms and it is often not
> that easy to make sense of an ontology by isolated inspection of axioms, no
> matter how readable the individual axioms may be. Protege does all the hard
> work of reading this bag of axioms and assembling an overall view of the
> axioms in an ontology and their relationships. In other words, having a
> human readable serialization of your entire ontology may not be all that
> advantageous.
>
> However, you may have a particular use case driving your decision.
>
> Martin
>
> On 6/21/2011 11:50 AM, Timothy Redmond wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to use some follow-up questions:
>>>
>>> * are there other limitations than the ones listed? (as implied by "The
>>> ones that I know about")
>>
>> I don't know.
>>>
>>> * how serious are these limitations in real life? For example, at
>>> least naively, I thought that I could live without annotations of
>>> undeclared entities (I may not use annotations at all), but I'm not
>>> sure what I would loose when dropping general concept inclusions from
>>> my ontology.
>>
>> Probably in real life these limitations are not that severe. Annotations
>> are very important but generally the entity declaration is somewhere nearby.
>> GCI's are not that common and you will know when you are using them. But
>> the Protege team in general takes data corruption issues very seriously.
>> The idea that you could make some changes to an ontology and lose them when
>> you save it is bad.
>>
>> Matthew indicated that at some time in the future there might be an OWL
>> api function that would be able to check if a particular serialization
>> format would lose data for a particular ontology. If this capability was
>> implemented then we could change the warning for the Manchester OWL syntax
>> to only come up if data would be lost.
>>
>>> * Are these limitations inherent in the Manchester Syntax or is it
>>> likely that there will be a future version that can represent
>>> these constructs?
>>
>>
>> These limitations are part of the specification of the Manchester syntax
>> so they are unlikely to go away.
>>
>> -Timothy
>>
>>
>> On 06/21/2011 11:16 AM, Bud P. Bruegger wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I found this archived message by Timothy Redmond:
>>>
>>>> Something that I forgot to mention. The Manchester OWL syntax is very
>>>> good - it is used throughout Protege. But as a format for saving
>>>> ontologies for real work, it is not recommended. The problem is that
>>>> there are a couple of constructs that cannot be represented in the
>>>> Manchester OWL syntax. The ones that I know about are annotations of
>>>> entities that are not declared and general concept inclusion axioms.
>>>> These axioms will get dropped when you save to this format. The
>>>> latest Protege gives a warning when select the Manchester OWL syntax
>>>> for saving ontologies.
>>>
>>> I'd like to use some follow-up questions:
>>>
>>> * are there other limitations than the ones listed? (as implied by "The
>>> ones that I know about")
>>>
>>> * how serious are these limitations in real life? For example, at
>>> least naively, I thought that I could live without annotations of
>>> undeclared entities (I may not use annotations at all), but I'm not
>>> sure what I would loose when dropping general concept inclusions from
>>> my ontology.
>>>
>>> * Are these limitations inherent in the Manchester Syntax or is it
>>> likely that there will be a future version that can represent
>>> these constructs?
>>>
>>> many thanks for your advice!
>>>
>>> -b
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> protege-owl mailing list
>>>
[hidden email]
>>>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>>>
>>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
>>>
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>>
[hidden email]
>>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
>>
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl>
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
>
http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>