Manchester syntax and GCIs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Manchester syntax and GCIs

Alan Ruttenberg-2
It's come to my attention that the Manchester syntax doesn't support
GCIs, and so rendering ontologies that have GCIs in manchester syntax
currently silently drops them.

I don't think it's acceptable to lose information when saving an
ontology, so I would propose that if the user requests saving an
ontology with GCIs in Manchester syntax they are warned of this and
given the option of aborting and saving in a different format.

-Alan
_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Manchester syntax and GCIs

Timothy Redmond

Modulo a little ui tweaking this will be trivial to fix.   Is this a
defect in the W3C Manchester OWL syntax specification?

-Timothy


[1] https://bmir-gforge.stanford.edu/gf/project/owleditor/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2327&start=0


On 07/01/2010 09:12 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> It's come to my attention that the Manchester syntax doesn't support
> GCIs, and so rendering ontologies that have GCIs in manchester syntax
> currently silently drops them.
>
> I don't think it's acceptable to lose information when saving an
> ontology, so I would propose that if the user requests saving an
> ontology with GCIs in Manchester syntax they are warned of this and
> given the option of aborting and saving in a different format.
>
>    

_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Manchester syntax and GCIs

Alan Ruttenberg-2
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Timothy Redmond <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Modulo a little ui tweaking this will be trivial to fix.   Is this a defect
> in the W3C Manchester OWL syntax specification?

Yes, I think so. In Matthew's response to my bug report [1] he says:
"There is no support for GCIs in the Manchester OWL Syntax."

In the note it says: [2]

"Some axioms that become part of a frame in the Manchester syntax do
not need to have a name for the frame, e.g., a SubClassOf axiom
between two complex descriptions, so the construction below cannot be
directly used. To transform these axioms to the Manchester syntax,
take a fresh name and turn the axiom into two axioms, one that makes
the new name equivalent to the first piece of the axiom and the other
the axiom with the sub-construct replaced by the new name. This would
turn a SubClassOf axiom into an EquivalentClasses axiom plus a
SubClassOf axiom."

Doing so would preserve the meaning at the cost of introducing new
classes. Protege (or the OWLAPI) could do this and add an annotation
indicating it did, and then use that to reconstruct the GCI when
reading the file.

-Alan



[1] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=595534&aid=2993769&group_id=90989
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/#Formal_Description_for_Mapping_from_OWL_2_Functional-Style_Syntax


>
> -Timothy
>
>
> [1]
> https://bmir-gforge.stanford.edu/gf/project/owleditor/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_item_id=2327&start=0
>
>
> On 07/01/2010 09:12 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>> It's come to my attention that the Manchester syntax doesn't support
>> GCIs, and so rendering ontologies that have GCIs in manchester syntax
>> currently silently drops them.
>>
>> I don't think it's acceptable to lose information when saving an
>> ontology, so I would propose that if the user requests saving an
>> ontology with GCIs in Manchester syntax they are warned of this and
>> given the option of aborting and saving in a different format.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p4-feedback mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback
>
_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback