As discussed in P-Rec. 9, knowledge representation languages such as OWL and RDF, commonly used to represent semantic artefacts by the Semantic Web and Linked Data communities, cannot express all characteristics of more complex/expressive semantic models. This lack of standard coverage impedes interoperability as complex semantic artefact have to be simplified which corresponds to a large loss of information and expressivity. To address this issue, the semantic web community should define an additional common language for high expressivity model representation as per FAIR principle I1.
A semantic repository should be able to parse and host semantic artifacts that are described in several standards (W3C Recommendations) or a well-know community representation language such as respectively OWL, RDFS, SKOS, and OBO, UMLS-RRF.
In AgroPortal, the representation language of an ontology is saved via the property omv:hasOntologyLanguage, its level of formality is described with the property omv:hasFormalityLevel, its syntax is described with the property omv:hasOntologySyntax.
This recommendation addresses concerns of the cognoscenti (sp?). The number of use cases that can not be met by the existing W3C resources is small, and there are solutions to address those use cases, if my parsing of Ontolog is correct.
How is this a problem keeping semantic resources from being FAIR?
Description
As discussed in P-Rec. 9, knowledge representation languages such as OWL and RDF, commonly used to represent semantic artefacts by the Semantic Web and Linked Data communities, cannot express all characteristics of more complex/expressive semantic models. This lack of standard coverage impedes interoperability as complex semantic artefact have to be simplified which corresponds to a large loss of information and expressivity. To address this issue, the semantic web community should define an additional common language for high expressivity model representation as per FAIR principle I1.
Existing recommendations:
● SHACL[42]
● SWRL[43]
● OntoUML[44]
Stakeholder: Community
@jonquet
A semantic repository should be able to parse and host semantic artifacts that are described in several standards (W3C Recommendations) or a well-know community representation language such as respectively OWL, RDFS, SKOS, and OBO, UMLS-RRF.
In AgroPortal, the representation language of an ontology is saved via the property omv:hasOntologyLanguage, its level of formality is described with the property omv:hasFormalityLevel, its syntax is described with the property omv:hasOntologySyntax.
This recommendation addresses concerns of the cognoscenti (sp?). The number of use cases that can not be met by the existing W3C resources is small, and there are solutions to address those use cases, if my parsing of Ontolog is correct.
How is this a problem keeping semantic resources from being FAIR?