W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [ontolog-forum] Last call documents for OWL 2 specificationavailable - review and comments solicited

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:25:01 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0901072325o393be8a7x3a9cf9ccda316fd5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS" <clynch@ontoreason.com>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org

Hi Cecil,

We'll look forward to getting your next note and will respond in
detail at that time.

Regards,
Alan

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS
<clynch@ontoreason.com> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Thank you for the response. I will draft a more complete note and examples
> from an ontology just completed for NCI taking the UML model of the NCI
> BRIDG Domain Analysis Model to OWL_DL. The issue has nothing to do with
> Protege, it is the issues with the OWL built in data types. My major issue
> is trying to follow the ODM specification for UML to OWL where the class
> attributes are to be expressed as Data type properties with the range
> indicating the data type of the UML attribute.
>
> The Classes need to be computable so that the annotation properties don't
> really work here for expressing the attributes and the ISO Healthcare Data
> types are in some cases the usual XML Schema data types expressable using
> the built-ins but in most cases they are complex data types which I have
> expressed as Object properties referencing the range as a class of a
> particular ISO data type.
>
> I realize that the issue goes beyond the simple addition of these complex
> data types and that the semantics must be worked out for the DL reasoners to
> act on, and perhaps the best way to handle this is as I have and the
> specification that needs to change is the OMG ODM specification.
>
> Cecil
>
> Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] [ontolog-forum] Last call documents for OWL
> 2 specificationavailable - review and comments solicited
> From: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, January 04, 2009 9:14 pm
> To: "Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS" <clynch@ontoreason.com>
>
> Hello Cecil,
>
> Thanks for your comment. It would be very helpful if you could find a
> couple of examples of this to inform the working group, and to send
> this comment to public-owl-comments@w3.org so that it can get the
> official attention of the working group, who would then consider the
> issue.
>
> While I can pass the comment on informally, the working groups isn't
> obliged to take it up (which it should) unless the message is sent to
> the aforementioned mailing list.
>
> I can offer a couple of comments that represent my own views, not
> those of the working group and perhaps these may be helpful.
>
> The first thing is that I'm nor sure if you are commenting on the
> extensibility of the Manchester Syntax, on the expressivity of OWL, or
> on the user interface of Protege, and it would help if this could be
> made clear. If a comment on Protege, it is outside the scope of the
> WG. If a comment on extensibility of Manchester Syntax (I note the
> current version says "The only datatypes allowed are the built-in OWL
> 2 datatypes.", then this should be made clear, although the ability to
> extend the syntax is no guarantee that the syntax *will* be extended
> by someone. If a comment on OWL expressivity, note that it may be
> possible to use annotation properties and annotation property ranges
> for this purpose. See
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Annotations. OWL annotation
> values may be any URI, and the annotation properties are ignored in
> the OWL semantics. Similarly annotation property ranges are ignored
> but might be used to express the intent that the range of an
> annotation property have a range of the custom datatype.
>
> Perhaps with some consideration of these comments you could send your
> original or a revised note to public-owl-comments@w3.org.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS
> <clynch@ontoreason.com> wrote:
>> Hi Allen,
>>
>> I have been using the OWL 2 Manchester syntax in protégé 4 beta almost
>> exclusively and find very few gaps in general. The area of exception that
>> is
>> still not dealt with in the current specification is the extension of
>> datatypes to capture the ISO healthcare complex data types (presumably by
>> external reference to an ISO or HL7 xsd). Because of the nesting of
>> primitive XML datatypes to form more complex data types, one is left with
>> modeling in OWL full. It would be nice to be able to reference external
>> schema definitions and leave these outside the DL reasoning but still be
>> able to point a dataProperty to them as Ranges.
>>
>> Not having this is a huge challenge for implementations in the more
>> complex
>> healthcare fields that require standards for structured vocabulary.
>>
>> Cecil Lynch
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@ontolog.cim3.net] On Behalf Of Alan
>> Ruttenberg
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:15 AM
>> To: [[ontolog-forum]]
>> Subject: [SPAM] [ontolog-forum] Last call documents for OWL 2
>> specificationavailable - review and comments solicited
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> An you may know, I co-chair the working group that is specifying the
>> next version of the OWL language. Because a number of you have had
>> experience with working with (or wrestling with) OWL, I wonder if you
>> would consider reviewing our "last call" documents.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2008/10/10/seven_owl_2_drafts_published
>>
>> I am looking for comments on all aspects of the specification, and in
>> particular comments as to how understandable the specification is,
>> any comments on new features, as well as any inconsistencies or errors.
>>
>> Please send your comments to public-owl-comments@w3.org by January
>> 23, 2009.
>>
>> If you have any questions about this process, feel free to contact me
>> personally.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any efforts you put in to this, which I greatly
>> appreciate.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@ontolog.cim3.net
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 07:31:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 January 2009 07:31:14 GMT