Notes on Manchester Syntax

[Rex Brooks <rex.brooks@ncoic.org>]

Hi Folks,

In our last meeting I said that I thought an OWL 2 representation in the 
Manchester Syntax could be more efficient for data handling. Jeff asked 
what I meant, and I had no answer, due to an attack of brain freeze and 
the fact that the meeting was about to adjourn and my mind was on other 
subjects. So I thought I would clarify that statement because I happen 
to be studying OWL and the Manchester Syntax as I continue my work on 
the EDXLData-Domain Model in Protege.

The elusive memory my brain wouldn't come up with automatically was that 
I had heard, most likely in the Ontolog Forum, or from another member of 
that group active in NCOIC, that the Manhcester Syntax works with the 
xsd 1.0 datatypes, so typing data as from that group of definitions 
would make the work of using the ontology in data-dependent applications 
(and implementations of standards such as ours which use the xsd 
datatypes) easier.

Well, I don't really know whether that is true or not since I haven't 
tried it. And trying it was on my agenda, and bubbled up to the top 
today. Hence I'm reading through the OWL 2 Primer and the OWL 2 
Specification, and other related materials. And what I have discovered 
further reinforces the notion of improved data handling in OWL 2. The 
more relevant reason for this is that the structural specification for 
OWL2 (one among several specifications focused on various aspects of 
OWL2) is defined using UML, which also lends itself to database 
specifications. Whether that is true or not, I still have to try it. One 
more factor is that OWL 2 is made to use the larger set of xsd-specified 
datatypes in XSD 1.1 which are optional for now until W3C finally adopts 
XML 1.1 as a Recommendation. However, whether it is possible or easy to 
include an OWL 2 specification of EDXL DATA-Domain Model as well as 
OWL1, which is the name given to the original specification for 
simplicity in reference.

For now all I can say is that it is interesting, and I wish I had more 
time to devote to this. Unfortunately due to the press of other 
interests that need to have the EDXL Data-Domain Model to work with, I 
have to give priority to pushing forward on the class-based version. If 
there is an easy or automatic way to create an OWL 2 version, that would 
be great and I would argue in favor of developing both in tandem.

Cheers,
Rex