[Obi-devel] [ANN] tawny-owl 0.11

[Phillip Lord]

I thought to announce this here, as my library was partly motivated by
OBI development! Apologies if it is not of interest.


I'm pleased to announce the release of tawny-owl 0.11.

What is it?
==========

This package allows users to construct OWL ontologies in a fully programmatic
environment, namely Clojure. This means the user can take advantage of
programmatic language to automate and abstract the ontology over the
development process; also, rather than requiring the creation of ontology
specific development environments, a normal programming IDE can be used;
finally, a human readable text format means that we can integrate with the
standard tooling for versioning and distributed development.

Changes
=======

# 0.11

## New features

- facts on individual are now supported
- documentation has been greatly extended
- OWL API 3.4.4


A new paper on the motivation and use cases for tawny-owl is also
available at http://www.russet.org.uk/blog/2366

https://github.com/phillord/tawny-owl

Feedback welcome!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt
New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service
that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your
browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic
and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may
_______________________________________________
Obi-devel mailing list
Obi-...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obi-devel

[Bjoern Peters]

Hi Phil, 

Quick question: When you refer to OBI being a motivating factor, were you mainly referring to the support for versioning? 

- Bjoern

---

--

Bjoern Peters
Assistant Professor
La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology
9420 Athena Circle
La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
Tel: 858/752-6914
Fax: 858/752-6987
http://www.liai.org/pages/faculty-peters

[Phillip Lord]

Actually, no, as my experiences of the pain of versioning OWL in a
normal VC system predate OBI by someway. But the value I see in tawny
wrt versioning would be relevant for OBI also.

My main motivator from OBI would be the ability to build patterns; there
is quite a lot of boilerplate in OBI; with tawny, you can build and use
patterns alongside the rest of the ontology freely. This can be for
complex patterns, but also small things such as defining new syntax for,
for example, OBIs annotation properties.

I think also, a programmatic environment could help with the release
process, again because it could help with automation.

Having said that, I don't think shoe horning tawny into OBIs existing
process would be terribly helpful; tawny may have been motivated by
thinking what tools would *I* want, if I were to develop OBI. But, that
doesn't mean it's the right tool for OBI.

What might be useful though, would be tawny's unit testing. This could
help to check that OBI is consistent, that specific classes are
reasoning the way you expect. In short, you could use it to drive
continuous integration; actually, OBI is already on a CI server ---
https://travis-ci.org/phillord/tawny-obi --- although not with any
useful tests yet.

On re-reading the email, I worry that the statement reads pejoratively;
it was not meant so. OBI has demonstrated the short comings in many
tools; tawny is my attempt to ask, can we steal the tools we need from
elsewhere, rather than develop them?

Phil

Bjoern Peters <bpe...@liai.org> writes:
> Quick question: When you refer to OBI being a motivating factor, were you
> mainly referring to the support for versioning?
>
> - Bjoern
>

Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: philli...@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Room 914 Claremont Tower, skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University, twitter: phillord
NE1 7RU