Re: [protege-user] Arguments for and against OWL

Ann,

Let me just point out that OWL2 is a family of languages: "There are
various syntaxes available for OWL which serve various purposes. The
Functional-Style syntax [OWL 2 Specification
<https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#ref-owl-2-specification>] is designed to
be easier for specification purposes and to provide a foundation for the
implementation of OWL 2 tools such as APIs and reasoners. The RDF/XML
syntax for OWL is just RDF/XML, with a particular translation for the OWL
constructs [OWL 2 RDF Mapping
<https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#ref-owl-2-rdf-mapping>]. This is the
only syntax that is mandatory to be supported by all OWL 2 tools. The
Manchester syntax [OWL 2 Manchester Syntax
<https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#ref-owl-2-manchester-syntax>] is an OWL
syntax that is designed to be easier for non-logicians to read. The OWL XML
syntax is an XML syntax for OWL defined by an XML schema [OWL 2 XML
<https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#ref-owl-2-xml-serialization>]. There are
tools that can translate between the different syntaxes for OWL."
https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-primer/#OWL_Syntaxes

I like FS, and Manchester may be fine.

Alex

ср, 22 янв. 2025 г. в 03:31, Ann Clark via protege-user <
[email protected]>:

> I'm seeing some noise online (LinkedIn) arguing against using OWL. The
> main argument seems to be  that OWL is not human readable, by people who do
> not appear to have learned OWL.
>
> Has anyone on this list got a good list of pros and cons for using OWL for
> applied ontology? Or, any articles arguing for OWL?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Ann
>
>
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
>

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user