Downloadable examples of OWL project/model with SKOS or RDFS lexicalization
Jeannine Beeken
stel...@uniroma2.it
Dear Jeanine,
A very short reply can be this:
https://art.uniroma2.it/legalhtml/ov.html
in here both the ontology and the ontology documentation (all of it, the html page and its included class diagram) have been created with VocBench.
If you want more, you can take a look at the ShowVoc instance at the Publications Office of the EU: https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/#/datasets. You can filter our those with model “OWL” by leaving only “Ontologies” selected in the “Dataset type” filter, top-left of the dataset list.
Almost all of the loaded datasets there have been developed with VocBench (if you want to be more precise, you can pick up those with “OP_” as a prefix for their title; those should be, more or less, all created with VB).
However, let me spend a few more words discussing your request:
In VB there is nothing that enforces the output to follow some specific structure or bias introduced by the tool. If you are producing an OWL ontology, you simply are using the OWL model and that’s it. When you serialize, you can use any serialization standard (triple formats such as RDF/XML, TURTLE, N3, NTRIPLES, etc.. and any of their extensions for quad serialization) so if you take something developed with VocBench, I’m not expecting it to be any different from an ontology developed manually or through other tools. Certainly, one can then – if they want – manually introduce some rearrangement of the content on the produced serialization; VB already provides several options for serialization (which are the options provided by the RIO component of RDF4J made available through the serialization plugin and thus automatically added to the UI of the export functionality) but some light touches directly on the text format might be used when publishing an ontology. Anyway, all of this is what - usually - stays out of the tool, whichever it is.
I wanted to state the above in order to clarify that there should be nothing to analyze or any particular finding to expect in checking data produced with VocBench. If you were looking for some aspect in particular or were expecting to find something, maybe you can tell us what is that you are analyzing in the specific.
Also, I would kindly ask a question in turn, to understand what is the rationale for the second step to Protégé. To be clear, there is no “marketing competition” here: there are lot of fantastic tools out there and it might be normal, from case to case, to have preference for one or one another even just for one feature, the look’n’feel or whatever reason. However, in the interest of the project, I’m interested in knowing from users if there is anything in the specific that can point to another tool or even to use another tool for a specific part of a publication workflow
Kind Regards,
Armando
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vocbench-user" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vocbench-use...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vocbench-user/a561dad8-ff7f-42e6-9c72-9f104fee9024n%40googlegroups.com.