What is the canonical captialisation of OBO Graphs?

[matentzn]

1. OBO Graphs
2. OBO-Graphs
3. OBOGraphs
4. OboGraphs
5. obographs
6. obo-graphs

Thank you.

[matentzn]

I would propose to rename this syntax and market it as the canonical JSON serialisation for ontologies.

Some ideas:

1. 👍 : ontographs would be the least diversion from obographs.
2. 🎉 : ontojex: Ontology JSON Exchange format
3. 👀 : jexongraphs: JSON Exchange format for ontology graphs
4. 👎 : I am against renaming it.

Do you have other ideas?

[gouttegd]

market it as the canonical JSON serialisation for ontologies

Shouldn’t that be done at the level of the OWL working group at the W3C?

Edit: Oops, just realised that 1) the working group is closed and 2) this was already raised on the WC’s list a few years ago but apparently went nowhere. Sorry for the noise.

[matentzn]

Surely not the OWL working group - this serialisation explicitly leaves OWL-land behind. But yes, eventually we should try and propose an official recommendation. W3C level will likely fail as they will as why it is not JSON-LD, For me personally, the effort is not wort it - its just a convenient serialisation of something (OWL) that has a well-defined standard.

This is not a huge priority for me now, but since we are doing some work on the spec, I thought I would propose it.

[joeflack4]

I like (1) and (2). I actually lean slightly against pluralisation in the name.

[cmungall]

"market it as the canonical JSON serialisation for ontologies.". This is a bit strong. Clearly as the original blog post from 2016 states the data model is opinionated about what aspects warrant a convenient structure vs which should be lower level axioms. Those decisions won't work for everyone. But I do think they work for a very broad range of stakeholders (not just bio) and I do think they map to abstractions that are common in multiple ontology browsers etc

That caveat aside I am open to a name change