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

I’d also like to point out that OWL is a language designed to construct a logic-based vocabulary for a domain and to encode the logically necessary relations in the domain. It is not the right language for data modeling or encoding contingent or defeasible knowledge (e.g., "birds can fly”).

To me, the readability argument is mostly a red herring. I hardly ever read the serialized OWL files. Instead, I use Protégé and other visual editors.

The arguments for OWL are arguments for a shared unambiguous logic-based domain vocabulary that includes the necessary domain knowledge. In science and medicine, the utility of such artifacts turns out to be compelling (see Gene Ontology, NCI Thesaurus, ICD-11). Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be used for everything. For a recent project, we used LinkML<https://linkml.io> to model data schemas and specify the domain’s top-level entities. Then, we used LinkML tools to generate JSON schemas and skeleton OWL classes.


With best regards,

Samson

On Jan 21, 2025, at 11:32 PM, Alex Shkotin <[email protected]> wrote:

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
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