William Van Woensel

> Would anyone be willing to pay for a good editor or is open-source assumed here? :) So either be prepared to pay for a good ontology editor, or move...

We're talking about ways to improve current (ontology) editing tools to suit practitioner needs - merely waiving your hand at that effort by saying "well, pay for it then" doesn't...

> When I wrote this, I did not have an ontology editor in mind. I wanted a general RDF editor which would have tab completes for predicates based on prefixes...

Fair enough :-) In that case, the proposal by @ktk seems to make the most sense - i.e., creating a DSL (N3, Turtle) using XText and leveraging their support for...

@irenetq I did not know about it, thanks for pointing this out! I will certainly try it out.

@irenetq > @VladimirAlexiev, I would not call any of these general data or ontology editors. They are primarily/only thesaurus/SKOS editors. Having said this, it is good that there are more...

Thanks very much - I wasn't aware of the OTTR effort! So, the first idea would cover any "semantic extension" that can nevertheless be translated into triples/quads (e.g, by an...

Why would re-using existing IRIs be a problem? .. Wasn't the existence of different terms with identical meanings (such as name, title) - due to blindness about what vocabularies are...

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding.. But firstly, I don't know why one would have to explicitly list all URIs of re-used concepts up front, i.e., create an "approved list". Do you...

Ok, I think I'm discerning a few different, albeit related, topics here (feel free to correct): (1) Useful to be able to work with the approved terms using a single...