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
>
>
>