Whether description logic have a text edit tool?

[liuruiguang]

Whether there is a text editor to write the relations of concept and roles of description logic directly, and

then automatically through any tools translated into owl ontology.Is there such a tool available?
I think to use the tools such as protege etc. to operate very fussy. I enjoy writting description logic

relationships as the same procedure as programming. I find a lot of tools from internet, but all have no such

feature. So I doubt that there isn't such tool? Can someone answer me?

[Jie Bao-6]

How about trying Manchester syntax?

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
http://www.webont.org/owled/2006/acceptedLong/submission_9.pdf

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM, liuruiguang <liu6272002@...> wrote:

> Whether there is a text editor to write the relations of concept and roles of
> description logic directly, and
>
> then automatically through any tools translated into owl ontology.Is there
> such a tool available?
> I think to use the tools such as protege etc. to operate very fussy. I enjoy
> writting description logic
>
> relationships as the same procedure as programming. I find a lot of tools
> from internet, but all have no such
>
> feature. So I doubt that there isn't such tool? Can someone answer me?
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Whether-description-logic-have-a-text-edit-tool--tp22540158p22540158.html
> Sent from the w3.org - semantic-web mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>

--
Jie Bao
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

[liuruiguang]

Jie Bao-6 wrote:

How about trying Manchester syntax?

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
http://www.webont.org/owled/2006/acceptedLong/submission_9.pdf

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM, liuruiguang <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Whether there is a text editor to write the relations of concept and roles of
> description logic directly, and
>
> then automatically through any tools translated into owl ontology.Is there
> such a tool available?
> I think to use the tools such as protege etc. to operate very fussy. I enjoy
> writting description logic
>
> relationships as the same procedure as programming. I find a lot of tools
> from internet, but all have no such
>
> feature. So I doubt that there isn't such tool? Can someone answer me?
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Whether-description-logic-have-a-text-edit-tool--tp22540158p22540158.html
> Sent from the w3.org - semantic-web mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>



--
Jie Bao
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

    Thanks for your reply. I have tried Manchester syntax in visual tool protege, However, I found that it is not very usefull and convenient. I think the plus is based on protege, but haven't improved much, because the essence of both two is same.
    As you know,there are some subsumption relations in the style of ,for example:
v1 subclassof R only v2t    not_v1 subclassof R only not_v2t
v2 subclassof R only v3t    not_v2 subclassof R only not_v3t
(v1 and v2) subclassof R only (v2t and v3t)     (not_v1 or not_v2) subclassof R only (not_v2t and not_v3t)
R some v2t subclassof v3
v1 is equivalent of not not_v1, v2 is equivalent of not not_v2, likewise v2t-not_v2t,v3t-not_v3t
    In the tool protege, the left of key word subclassof only permits primitive concept, so complex concept must use another equivalent concept to replace it. Moreover the form of R some v2t subclassof v3 is not permited in protege. For now, I have a task about description logic and need such form. I have't found this in protege, and I think this is not convenience.
    My be there are some features that I haven't knew. In my opinion ,I think if there is a text editor and supports writing description logic in more nature form as mentions above and input this text file to reasoner FaCT++,pellet etc. I think it will be very benefit for developer.
    Thanks for your help, my English is not very well, and I hope I express my mean exactly. I expect your further reply, thank you again!
   

[Richard H. McCullough-3]

You might have a look at the mKR language
(http://mkrmke.org) to see if it appeals to you.
To date, all my translations have been
from OWL to mKR, but I would consider
implementing the reverse translation
if you are interested.

Note that some features of mKR,
e.g., methods, n-ary relations,
have no corresponding feature in OWL.

Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

----- Original Message -----
From: "liuruiguang" <liu6272002@...>
To: <semantic-web@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: Whether description logic have a text edit tool?

>
>
>
> Jie Bao-6 wrote:
>>
>> How about trying Manchester syntax?
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/ManchesterSyntax
>> http://www.webont.org/owled/2006/acceptedLong/submission_9.pdf
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM, liuruiguang <liu6272002@...> wrote:
>>> Whether there is a text editor to write the relations of concept and
>>> roles of
>>> description logic directly, and
>>>
>>> then automatically through any tools translated into owl ontology.Is
>>> there
>>> such a tool available?
>>> I think to use the tools such as protege etc. to operate very fussy. I
>>> enjoy
>>> writting description logic
>>>
>>> relationships as the same procedure as programming. I find a lot of
>>> tools
>>> from internet, but all have no such
>>>
>>> feature. So I doubt that there isn't such tool? Can someone answer me?
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Whether-description-logic-have-a-text-edit-tool--tp22540158p22540158.html
>>> Sent from the w3.org - semantic-web mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jie Bao
>> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
>>
>>
>>
>    Thanks for your reply. I have tried Manchester syntax in visual tool
> protege, However, I found that it is not very usefull and convenient. I
> think the plus is based on protege, but haven't improved much, because the
> essence of both two is same.
>    As you know,there are some subsumption relations in the style of ,for
> example:
> v1 subclassof R only v2t    not_v1 subclassof R only not_v2t
> v2 subclassof R only v3t    not_v2 subclassof R only not_v3t
> (v1 and v2) subclassof R only (v2t and v3t)     (not_v1 or not_v2)
> subclassof R only (not_v2t and not_v3t)
> R some v2t subclassof v3
> v1 is equivalent of not not_v1, v2 is equivalent of not not_v2, likewise
> v2t-not_v2t,v3t-not_v3t
>    In the tool protege, the left of key word subclassof only permits
> primitive concept, so complex concept must use another equivalent concept
> to
> replace it. Moreover the form of R some v2t subclassof v3 is not permited
> in
> protege. For now, I have a task about description logic and need such
> form.
> I have't found this in protege, and I think this is not convenience.
>    My be there are some features that I haven't knew. In my opinion ,I
> think if there is a text editor and supports writing description logic in
> more nature form as mentions above and input this text file to reasoner
> FaCT++,pellet etc. I think it will be very benefit for developer.
>    Thanks for your help, my English is not very well, and I hope I express
> my mean exactly. I expect your further reply, thank you again!
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Whether-description-logic-have-a-text-edit-tool--tp22540158p22575268.html
> Sent from the w3.org - semantic-web mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>