Regarding OWL

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

Regarding OWL

p.rajkannan

Hi,
How to get Description Logic(DL) from OWL?

--
Thanks & Regards,
Kannan.P
I Year M.Tech (NIE),
Department of Computer Science,
Pondicherry University,
Puducherry - 605014.


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

Re: Regarding OWL

Timothy Redmond

I apologize for the late reply on this.  OWL is a description logic.

-Timothy

On 03/03/2011 08:28 AM, kannan p wrote:

Hi,
How to get Description Logic(DL) from OWL?

--
Thanks & Regards,
Kannan.P
I Year M.Tech (NIE),
Department of Computer Science,
Pondicherry University,
Puducherry - 605014.

_______________________________________________ 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding OWL

Thomas Schneider-2
In reply to this post by p.rajkannan

On 08.03.2011, Timothy Redmond wrote:

> I apologize for the late reply on this.  OWL is a description logic.
>
> On 03/03/2011 08:28 AM, kannan p wrote:
>>
>> How to get Description Logic(DL) from OWL?

I suspect that the question aims at getting a representation of a given OWL ontology in DL notation? In this case, you can use the preliminary LaTeX renderer that is provided by the OWL API and accessible from Protégé 4: Open the OWL ontology, choose "Save as" and select "Latex" as a format (this should really be written as "LaTeX" to avoid insinuating associations ;-)). Process the resulting .tex file with PDFLaTeX, and you'll get a .pdf file that lists all axioms in DL notation.

Cheers

Thomas

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Schneider
Universität Bremen, FB 03
MZH, Raum 3100
Postfach 330440
28334 Bremen
Germany
+49 421 218-64432
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tooting Bec (n.)
A car behind which one draws up at the traffic lights and hoots at when the lights go green before realizing that the car is parked and there is no one inside.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

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

Re: Regarding OWL

Melanie Hilario-2
Thanks for the info! I followed your instructions to get my ontology in DL notation, but the pdflatex compiler stumbled on the first URI and stopped with an error message "Inserted missing $" (my guess is that it was taking the Protege-generated URI for a math expression, although it wasn't purely numerical -- it had a 4-letter prefix followed by 8 digits). Would you know if there is a way of saving an OWL ontology in DL notation, but replacing numerical URIs with the given annotation labels? This would help both the compiler and the user (with more readable output).

If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated way of going back to using my labels as URIs? 
I shifted from 'semantic URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor > Use URIs as labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.

Thanks very much,
Melanie

On 03/10/2011 10:44 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
On 08.03.2011, Timothy Redmond wrote:

I apologize for the late reply on this.  OWL is a description logic.

On 03/03/2011 08:28 AM, kannan p wrote:
How to get Description Logic(DL) from OWL?
I suspect that the question aims at getting a representation of a given OWL ontology in DL notation? In this case, you can use the preliminary LaTeX renderer that is provided by the OWL API and accessible from Protégé 4: Open the OWL ontology, choose "Save as" and select "Latex" as a format (this should really be written as "LaTeX" to avoid insinuating associations ;-)). Process the resulting .tex file with PDFLaTeX, and you'll get a .pdf file that lists all axioms in DL notation.

Cheers

Thomas

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Schneider
Universität Bremen, FB 03
MZH, Raum 3100
Postfach 330440
28334 Bremen
Germany
+49 421 218-64432
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tooting Bec (n.)
A car behind which one draws up at the traffic lights and hoots at when the lights go green before realizing that the car is parked and there is no one inside.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

_______________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding OWL

Thomas Schneider-2
Hi Melanie,

On 10.03.2011, at 12:24, Melanie Hilario wrote:

> Thanks for the info! I followed your instructions to get my ontology in DL notation, but the pdflatex compiler stumbled on the first URI and stopped with an error message "Inserted missing $" (my guess is that it was taking the Protege-generated URI for a math expression, although it wasn't purely numerical -- it had a 4-letter prefix followed by 8 digits).

That's evidence that the LaTeX renderer isn't very robust. It's never been intended as an "official" renderer equal to those that save ontologies in one of the standard OWL syntaxes, but clearly it shouldn't have bugs.

The "missing $" error means that LaTeX encountered characters that may only be used in math mode. I suspect that the hash character used in URIs # is one of those. We need to fix this in the LaTeX renderer, which is part of the OWL API. I'll create a ticket there -- and will probably provide the fix myself, but it can take a few days. If you don't mind showing me the problematic URIs (private message is fine), that could help narrowing the error down.

> Would you know if there is a way of saving an OWL ontology in DL notation, but replacing numerical URIs with the       given annotation labels? This would help both the compiler and the user (with more readable output).

This sounds helpful indeed. I'd like to discuss this feature request with other OWL API contributors before making the more substantial change.

> If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated way of going back to using my labels as URIs?  I shifted from 'semantic URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor > Use URIs as labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.

I'm not sure whether this feature exists in Protégé -- perhaps someone else here can comment.

Cheers

Thomas

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas Schneider
Universität Bremen, FB 03
MZH, Raum 3100
Postfach 330440
28334 Bremen
Germany
+49 421 218-64432
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tooting Bec (n.)
A car behind which one draws up at the traffic lights and hoots at when the lights go green before realizing that the car is parked and there is no one inside.

Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff

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

Re: Regarding OWL

Timothy Redmond

>> If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated way of going back to using my labels as URIs?  I shifted from 'semantic URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor>  Use URIs as labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.
> I'm not sure whether this feature exists in Protégé -- perhaps someone else here can comment.

I don't think we have this feature.  This question has come up before
but it hasn't been implemented yet because it is the less common
direction to go.

-Timothy


On 03/10/2011 04:52 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:

> Hi Melanie,
>
> On 10.03.2011, at 12:24, Melanie Hilario wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info! I followed your instructions to get my ontology in DL notation, but the pdflatex compiler stumbled on the first URI and stopped with an error message "Inserted missing $" (my guess is that it was taking the Protege-generated URI for a math expression, although it wasn't purely numerical -- it had a 4-letter prefix followed by 8 digits).
> That's evidence that the LaTeX renderer isn't very robust. It's never been intended as an "official" renderer equal to those that save ontologies in one of the standard OWL syntaxes, but clearly it shouldn't have bugs.
>
> The "missing $" error means that LaTeX encountered characters that may only be used in math mode. I suspect that the hash character used in URIs # is one of those. We need to fix this in the LaTeX renderer, which is part of the OWL API. I'll create a ticket there -- and will probably provide the fix myself, but it can take a few days. If you don't mind showing me the problematic URIs (private message is fine), that could help narrowing the error down.
>
>> Would you know if there is a way of saving an OWL ontology in DL notation, but replacing numerical URIs with the       given annotation labels? This would help both the compiler and the user (with more readable output).
> This sounds helpful indeed. I'd like to discuss this feature request with other OWL API contributors before making the more substantial change.
>
>> If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated way of going back to using my labels as URIs?  I shifted from 'semantic URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor>  Use URIs as labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.
> I'm not sure whether this feature exists in Protégé -- perhaps someone else here can comment.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Thomas Schneider
> Universität Bremen, FB 03
> MZH, Raum 3100
> Postfach 330440
> 28334 Bremen
> Germany
> +49 421 218-64432
> http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tooting Bec (n.)
> A car behind which one draws up at the traffic lights and hoots at when the lights go green before realizing that the car is parked and there is no one inside.
>
> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding OWL

Alan Ruttenberg-2
In reply to this post by Melanie Hilario-2
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Melanie Hilario
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated
> way of going back to using my labels as URIs?  I shifted from 'semantic
> URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor > Use URIs as
> labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I
> appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard
> to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.

Better to lobby the other toolmakers to respect the spirit of the
definition of rdfs:label
"rdfs:label is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used to provide
a human-readable version of a resource's name."

It's absurd that human readability be subverted by developers short-sightedness.

-Alan
_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback