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

Hello,

In Lexeau® projet, I have been using Protégé desktop for 10 years now, 
and its reasoner, to set up a multilingual ontology of classes, 
instances and properties of the water domain, for example *Abstraction 
of water* /generates/ *Water abstraction flow*, in order to generate 
bilingual lexicons of the domain : presently a French and English 
lexicon with lexical relations of *Water services and sustainable 
development*. It includes non rendondant conceptual graphs easy to 
understand by the actors of the domain, therefore improving 
cross-understanding. I make a dinstinction between the use of SKOS to 
construct a compelling terminology and the use of OWL to construct a new 
type of open lexicon (with variants), based on functionnal relations 
between concrete worl entities.

This is my pro-OWL argument for a shared unambiguous logic-based domain 
*lexicon* that includes the necessary professional domainknowledge.

Yours,

Jean-Louis Janin


Le 22/01/2025 à 09:36, Samson Tu a écrit :
> 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 <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 <protege- >> 
[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:protege- >> 
[email protected]> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/ >> 
listinfo/protege-user <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

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