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

Ann, I have a living product listing prod and cons of owl and other knowledgt modeling tech and types of semantic artifacts (ontologies, et al).Contact to acquire.

Respectfully,Robert Rovetto-
Hire for services or schedule meeting here.
 NASA Datanauts Open Data Initiative
Education Committee, International Association for Ontology and its Applications.Committee member in various orgs.
ORCID Profile, Google Scholar.
[email protected]

    On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 04:06:41 AM EST, Jean-Louis Janin <[email protected]> wrote:  
 
  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 domain knowledge.
 
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

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