[higgins-dev] Recommended OWL Editor?

["Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

You mentioned RDF\OWL editors and the way they would format statements.  Are you using an RDF\OWL editor?  If so, which one?  I did a little googling and Altova's editor comes up but, of course, we'd like a free\open source one if there's a good one.  I see Standford has a free one called protégé but I'd like to know what you use and\or recommend.

I'd like to experiment with an OWL editor to see how it would (or could) format statements before I go through and condense stuff.  It'd be a pain to have to go and reformat what our preferred editor did each time we add a new construct.  On the other hand, eventually, it'll become quite static so that wouldn't be a concern so much as readability in it's raw form.

What do you think?  Anyway, I'll review 0.5.1 in the mean time.

Thanks,
Tom

>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 8/31/2006 7:44 PM >>>

Tom wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Some questions from my preliminary review.
> 
> 1. Aren't the annotation properties you defined already predefined in
> OWL?  If not, what is the difference between the ones you defined and
> the predefined ones?

This was a bug. I've deleted these.

> 
> 2. In trying to understand any given definition, I think I'm running
> into "canonical form" matters (as Jim mentioned) but I wanted to make
> sure I'm not misunderstanding something syntactical.  For example, is
> there any difference between:
> a.
> <owl:onProperty>
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> </owl:onProperty>
> 
> and
> 
> b.
> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
> ?

Yes, these are the same. 

> 
> 3. For that matter ... is there any difference between:
> a.
> <rdf:Description>
>    <owl:onProperty>
>       <rdf:Description rdf:about="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
>    </owl:onProperty>
>    <rdf:type>
>       <rdf:Description
> rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Restriction"/>
>    </rdf:type>
>    <owl:cardinality
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger";>1</owl:
> cardinality>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> and
> 
> b.
> <owl:Restriction>
>    <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
>    <owl:cardinality
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#nonNegativeInteger";>1</owl:
> cardinality>
> </owl:Restriction>
> ?

They are the same. As in your previous question, a human is more likely to
write (b). An RDF/OWL editor is more likely to write (a).
> 
> 4. It looks like we could do this kind of thing throughout the entire
> ontology.  I see some classes and other things later that I THINK we
> could make shorter and sweeter but I wanna focus on the content and
> structure of the ontology for this review.  If I'm on the right track
> here, I'd be happy to condense all these and send it back.  I think it'd
> make it a lot easier to parse and understand with the eye that way.

That would be great. Before you start though I've just posted a 0.5.1 that
has a little bit of cleanup (mostly of other kinds), but there is much to
do. E.g. in 0.5.1 I've cleaned up Digital Subject:

	<owl:Class rdf:ID="DigitalSubject">
		<rdfs:subClassOf>
			<owl:Restriction>
				<owl:onProperty
rdf:resource="#uniqueIdentifier"/>
				<owl:cardinality
rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">1</owl:cardinality>
			</owl:Restriction>
		</rdfs:subClassOf>
	</owl:Class>

> 
> 5. For instances where minCardinality is 1 and maxCardinality is also
> 1, could we not simply state cardinality is 1?

Yes. 

> 
> 6. As we subclass DigitalSubject, will we be able to restrict the kinds
> of attribute statements that are legal on those classes?  For example, a
> People class that is restricted to PeopleAttributeStatements?

The short answer is yes. Jim asked a similar question in his email and I'll
reply more fully to Jim's on this matter.

> 
> 7. Betraying my lack of experience here ... #contextURI is defined to
> have cardinality restrictions that don't reference any specific class.
> Does this mean it applies to all domains?  I'm confused because I see
> classes that specifically restrict the cardinality of #contextURI with
> exactly the same values.

I just noticed this myself. It is junk. It has been deleted in 0.5.1

[..]

_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev