- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 02:25:01 -0500
- 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 UTC