owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

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

owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

Tom Kramer-2
Hello OWL support -

I am trying to improve my understanding of prefixes in OWL. I am puzzled
by observing that the owl: prefix is not used by Protege in functional
syntax notation. I spent about an hour looking for any documentation of
this and found none. I have two hypotheses:

1. The owl: prefix is required in functional syntax notation but Protege
does not use it (neither does the Manchester syntax converter). In fact,
Protege does not allow it, except that a Prefix declaration of owl: is
allowed.

2. The owl: prefix is not allowed in functional syntax notation (except,
possibly, that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed) but that is not
documented.

Is either of these correct? If not, what is?

Thanks.

Tom Kramer

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

Re: owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

Timothy Redmond

Certain prefixes should probably be left alone.  These include for
example, owl:, rdfs: and rdf:.  The namespaces associated with these
prefixes play an important role in the rdfs serialization of OWL  2
files.  These prefixes are expected to be set in a certain standard way
in the rdfs serialization of OWL.  Changing these prefix declarations
would probably cause confusion for ontology editors.  There are also
statements in the OWL 2 syntax document indicating the standard
namespaces associated with these prefixes are reserved and should not be
used to name entities.

I would not be amazed if Protege does not let you change these
prefixes.  I am also not sure if these prefixes are used in the OWL
functional syntax.  Their use in rdfs is just a quirk of that particular
serialization.

-Timothy


On 11/15/2013 06:44 AM, Tom Kramer wrote:

> Hello OWL support -
>
> I am trying to improve my understanding of prefixes in OWL. I am
> puzzled by observing that the owl: prefix is not used by Protege in
> functional syntax notation. I spent about an hour looking for any
> documentation of this and found none. I have two hypotheses:
>
> 1. The owl: prefix is required in functional syntax notation but
> Protege does not use it (neither does the Manchester syntax
> converter). In fact, Protege does not allow it, except that a Prefix
> declaration of owl: is allowed.
>
> 2. The owl: prefix is not allowed in functional syntax notation
> (except, possibly, that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed) but
> that is not documented.
>
> Is either of these correct? If not, what is?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tom Kramer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

Matthew Horridge-2
Administrator
In reply to this post by Tom Kramer-2
Hi Tom,

Can you provide an example of where you expect it to be used but it isn’t?

Cheers,

Matthew


On 15 Nov 2013, at 06:44, Tom Kramer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello OWL support -
>
> I am trying to improve my understanding of prefixes in OWL. I am puzzled by observing that the owl: prefix is not used by Protege in functional syntax notation. I spent about an hour looking for any documentation of this and found none. I have two hypotheses:
>
> 1. The owl: prefix is required in functional syntax notation but Protege does not use it (neither does the Manchester syntax converter). In fact, Protege does not allow it, except that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed.
>
> 2. The owl: prefix is not allowed in functional syntax notation (except, possibly, that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed) but that is not documented.
>
> Is either of these correct? If not, what is?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tom Kramer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

Tom Kramer-2
Hello Matthew -

Thanks for your help. Based on studying the OWL 2 spec, I expect to see
"owl:" in front of all the OWL terms. For example, owl:Ontology and
owl:Class, rather than just Ontology and Class. The spec says the Prefix
declaration for owl: may be omitted, but I do not see anything saying
the prefix may be omitted from in front of OWL terms.

I have attached two versions of the pizza ontology. One I downloaded; it
uses the owl: prefix several thousand times. The other I generated using
Protege by reading in the first version and writing it out again in OWL
functional syntax. It uses the owl: prefix twice. I do not understand by
what authority it is omitted.

Tom Kramer

P.S. I looked at every use of "owl:" in the OWL 2 spec.


On 11/15/2013 12:17 PM, Matthew Horridge wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> Can you provide an example of where you expect it to be used but it isn’t?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 15 Nov 2013, at 06:44, Tom Kramer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello OWL support -
>>
>> I am trying to improve my understanding of prefixes in OWL. I am puzzled by observing that the owl: prefix is not used by Protege in functional syntax notation. I spent about an hour looking for any documentation of this and found none. I have two hypotheses:
>>
>> 1. The owl: prefix is required in functional syntax notation but Protege does not use it (neither does the Manchester syntax converter). In fact, Protege does not allow it, except that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed.
>>
>> 2. The owl: prefix is not allowed in functional syntax notation (except, possibly, that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed) but that is not documented.
>>
>> Is either of these correct? If not, what is?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Tom Kramer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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

pizza.owl (148K) Download Attachment
pizzaFunc.owl (71K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

Steve Wartik

Tom,

 

The Functional Language Specification provides a grammar (section 13). That grammar includes certain tokens: Ontology, ObjectUnionOf, etc. In the proper places, these tokens are unambiguous. Suppose you write:

 

Class ( class-iri )

 

“Class” is one of a number of expected tokens, and “class-iri” is something that must be an IRI – one form for which is prefixed. So if you wanted to define OWL’s concept of an object property as a class, you would have to write:

 

Class ( owl:objectProperty )

 

which doesn’t happen to be legal. In fact, I don’t think there’s any place where you can, or would want to, use the owl prefix as an IRI. Go through the grammar and, if you find a place, let us know.

 

Regards,

 

Steve Wartik

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Kramer
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:04 PM
To: Protege 4.x support and discussion
Subject: Re: [p4-feedback] owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

 

Hello Matthew -

 

Thanks for your help. Based on studying the OWL 2 spec, I expect to see "owl:" in front of all the OWL terms. For example, owl:Ontology and owl:Class, rather than just Ontology and Class. The spec says the Prefix declaration for owl: may be omitted, but I do not see anything saying the prefix may be omitted from in front of OWL terms.

 

I have attached two versions of the pizza ontology. One I downloaded; it uses the owl: prefix several thousand times. The other I generated using Protege by reading in the first version and writing it out again in OWL functional syntax. It uses the owl: prefix twice. I do not understand by what authority it is omitted.

 

Tom Kramer

 

P.S. I looked at every use of "owl:" in the OWL 2 spec.

 

 

On 11/15/2013 12:17 PM, Matthew Horridge wrote:

> Hi Tom,

> 

> Can you provide an example of where you expect it to be used but it isn’t?

> 

> Cheers,

> 

> Matthew

> 

> 

> On 15 Nov 2013, at 06:44, Tom Kramer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 

>> Hello OWL support -

>> 

>> I am trying to improve my understanding of prefixes in OWL. I am puzzled by observing that the owl: prefix is not used by Protege in functional syntax notation. I spent about an hour looking for any documentation of this and found none. I have two hypotheses:

>> 

>> 1. The owl: prefix is required in functional syntax notation but Protege does not use it (neither does the Manchester syntax converter). In fact, Protege does not allow it, except that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed.

>> 

>> 2. The owl: prefix is not allowed in functional syntax notation (except, possibly, that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed) but that is not documented.

>> 

>> Is either of these correct? If not, what is?

>> 

>> Thanks.

>> 

>> Tom Kramer

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

 


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

Re: owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

Tom Kramer-2
Hi Steve -

Thanks. I must be getting old. I use productions all the time. I'm not sure why I did not take the literals literally. As you say, the grammar does not use the owl: prefix in the literals, so the prefix does not get into the ontology files. The functional syntax is just different from the other syntaxes in this regard. Sorry to waste everbody's time.

Tom Kramer

On 11/15/2013 02:15 PM, Wartik, Steven P "Steve" wrote:

Tom,

 

The Functional Language Specification provides a grammar (section 13). That grammar includes certain tokens: Ontology, ObjectUnionOf, etc. In the proper places, these tokens are unambiguous. Suppose you write:

 

Class ( class-iri )

 

“Class” is one of a number of expected tokens, and “class-iri” is something that must be an IRI – one form for which is prefixed. So if you wanted to define OWL’s concept of an object property as a class, you would have to write:

 

Class ( owl:objectProperty )

 

which doesn’t happen to be legal. In fact, I don’t think there’s any place where you can, or would want to, use the owl prefix as an IRI. Go through the grammar and, if you find a place, let us know.

 

Regards,

 

Steve Wartik

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Kramer
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:04 PM
To: Protege 4.x support and discussion
Subject: Re: [p4-feedback] owl: prefix in OWL functional syntax

 

Hello Matthew -

 

Thanks for your help. Based on studying the OWL 2 spec, I expect to see "owl:" in front of all the OWL terms. For example, owl:Ontology and owl:Class, rather than just Ontology and Class. The spec says the Prefix declaration for owl: may be omitted, but I do not see anything saying the prefix may be omitted from in front of OWL terms.

 

I have attached two versions of the pizza ontology. One I downloaded; it uses the owl: prefix several thousand times. The other I generated using Protege by reading in the first version and writing it out again in OWL functional syntax. It uses the owl: prefix twice. I do not understand by what authority it is omitted.

 

Tom Kramer

 

P.S. I looked at every use of "owl:" in the OWL 2 spec.

 

 

On 11/15/2013 12:17 PM, Matthew Horridge wrote:

> Hi Tom,

> Can you provide an example of where you expect it to be used but it isn’t?

> Cheers,

> Matthew

> On 15 Nov 2013, at 06:44, Tom Kramer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Hello OWL support -

>> 

>> I am trying to improve my understanding of prefixes in OWL. I am puzzled by observing that the owl: prefix is not used by Protege in functional syntax notation. I spent about an hour looking for any documentation of this and found none. I have two hypotheses:

>> 

>> 1. The owl: prefix is required in functional syntax notation but Protege does not use it (neither does the Manchester syntax converter). In fact, Protege does not allow it, except that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed.

>> 

>> 2. The owl: prefix is not allowed in functional syntax notation (except, possibly, that a Prefix declaration of owl: is allowed) but that is not documented.

>> 

>> Is either of these correct? If not, what is?

>> 

>> Thanks.

>> 

>> Tom Kramer

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

 



_______________________________________________
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