> Perhaps I'm getting the feeling that the different points of view reflects > a > different perception of OWL vs RDF ? > Just a thought. I'm much more likely to move triples via scripts than using > a tool. > > ciao, > Andrea
You're partly right. I don't look at RDF/XML or turtle when I represent knowledge using OWL. We're more interested in axioms - and we use a totally different syntax - the Manchester Syntax - that abstracts away the complexity of triples. Using a UI that puts the labels in place of class and predicate URIs makes our life significantly better. This functionality (for queries at least) has been around for 3-4 years in Protégé 4. I've never looked back ;) If you want to work with a more sophisticated API - I might suggest the OWL API. It's more powerful, but also more sophisticated - and it takes a bit of time and effort to learn it. Others have been developing scripting tools around it to make it easier to use (Rob Hoehndorf has been using groovy to work with the OWL API + reasoners; Chris Mungall with POSH, a prolog shell). I guess I have my own history - I worked with the C/C++ APIs from the NCBI - I never parsed a file until I started using PHP. I'm keen to get back to less manhandling and more science. Cheers, m.
