Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8911145
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 15, 20262026-06-15T03:51:56+00:00 2026-06-15T03:51:56+00:00

I just discovered OWL and Protege. Upon reading through this reference page (which I

  • 0

I just discovered OWL and Protege. Upon reading through this reference page (which I quote below), I am left wondering whether it is possible to not use the abstract OWL syntax, and rather to write in DL syntax. My background is in logic, so it sounds like it would be more fun even if I would have to translate the ontologies later (though I am sure there must be applications to do this–besides, don’t reasoners use DL?).

If it is possible, what configuration of settings should I use in Protege (or other software of your suggestion) in order to do this? I suspect it’s not possible, but I want to be sure, as I see no good reason for this other than the awkwardness of special symbols.

EDIT: If it is NOT possible, how exactly are DL languages used?

OWL DL is the description logic SHOIN with support of data values, data types
and datatype properties, i.e., SHOIN(D), but since OWL is based on RDF(S), the
terminology slightly differs. … For description of OWL ontology or knowledge
base, the DL syntax can be used. There is an “abstract” LISP-like syntax
defined that is easier to write in ASCII character set.

OWL

Here’s a very brief working example of the two syntax styles for the same data.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-15T03:51:58+00:00Added an answer on June 15, 2026 at 3:51 am

    don’t reasoners use DL?

    Not necessarily. They use all kinds of logics, some of which are DLs, some are not.

    If it is possible, what configuration of settings should I use in Protege (or other software of your suggestion) in order to do this?

    I’m pretty sure there is no such pluggin for Protégé. But if you really want some fun, use a text editor and write your ontology by hand. There are many syntaxes you can use: the functional syntax, the OWL/XML syntax, the RDF/XML syntax are all normative. In addition, you can use the Manchester syntax, Turtle, N-Triples, JSON-LD, that will be future recommendations for writing RDF (and therefore OWL). Or the more exotic RDF/JSON, HDT. Or again, more “powerful” syntaxes like Notation3, TriG, TriX, NQuads. Plenty of fun!

    In any case, if you would like to write in the DL syntax, you would need to use special Unicode characters or special commands like in LaTeX for instance. And the parser that deals with it would have to read those characters or commands. Not ideal if you are programming. But you can always use the DL syntax in your writings.

    BTW, the current standard Web Ontology Language is OWL 2. Its DL variant (viz., OWL 2 DL) is based on the even more irresistible SROIQ.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I just discovered this operator and I was wondering if it is safe to
I just discovered this great site. I was reading bash tagged posts when the
I just discovered a bug where the code looked something like this: char *foo
I just discovered this component and started working with it. I understand that the
I just discovered the box-sizing: border-box CSS property which solves a bunch of cross
I just discovered there is a Ajax success handler, which is great because its
I just discovered from this Q/A that structs are inheritable in C++ but, is
I just discovered this API and as of today (3/2/2012) it allows you to
I have just discovered boost::property_tree, which seems the perfect answer to my problem. I
I just discovered the CSS3 background-size:cover attribute. Now I would like to replace this

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.