Re: Minutes HCLS TC 3-22-07

Alan,

This is exactly what I was looking for-- just need to format each paragraph below by the OWL 1.1 feature mentioned in them, e.g...

2. Qualified cardinality restrictions (QCRs):  
These allow classification based on there being a certain number of instances of a specific class as a property. 
a. The classic example is  that you can now say that a hand has_part 5 digits, has_part 4 fingers, has_part 1 thumb. Before QCRs you could only say hand has_part 5 things. 
b. Can be used to implement the ACPP counted inclusion and exclusion criteria rules.

I'll take a stab at this on the wiki (unless AlanR would like to do this himself ;-) )... keep sending more examples to the list

Eric

On Mar 22, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:



	On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Eric Neumann wrote:

		   EN - Thinks continuing to enhance OWL is a good thing. Is unsure as to
		   how the proposed enhancements help the life sciences. Puning seems to be
		   one of the big things.


	Qualified cardinality restrictions (QCRs) are useful all over the place. They allow one to classify based on there being a certain number of instances of a specific class as a property. The classic example is  that you can now say that a hand has_part 5 digits, has_part 4 fingers, has_part 1 thumb. Before QCRs you could only say hand has_part 5 things. Can be used to implement the ACPP counted inclusion and exclusion criteria rules.

	Datatypes allow the specification of classes that restrict, e.g. a number to a certain range. So you can define "Adult" as someone whos age is greater  than 18 years. Useful in the clinical context, e.g.,  for classification based on diagnostic results.

	Role inclusions allow for propagation of values across more than one property.  A useful example would be when using reified properties. This is useful in, e.g. Biopax,  where it will allow you to much more cleanly connect pathways to participants in the pathways. That's because you can express the fact that if a complex is a participant, and the complex has components,  then the components are also participants.

	component o participant < participant.


		   VK - Hasn't seen a use case for puning.  Data type reasoning
		   enhancements sound valuable. Rule chain inclusions would be very
		   valuable. Qualified cardinality constraints is another enhancement, but
		   can be done with OWL as is. Transition shouldn't be too painful as
		   enterprises haven't adopted OWL yet, and open source software already
		   supports OWL 1.1.

	Punning gets rid of a big reason for using annotation properties, when you otherwise would
	want to use a datatype or object property with a class or property as subject. Punning lets you do
	that, with the caveat that, e.g, properties of classes don't have any effects on their instances.
	It implements this by allowing a given URI to be a name for an instance, a class, and a property
	all at the same time and using the usage context to decide which of the three is meant.

	It happens all the same that you want to, say, restrict some property (say curator) to one of several values.
	Since curator makes sense for both classes and instances, previously you couldn't say this because
	being a property of a class meant the property had to be an annotation, and therefore have no axioms.
	Now it no longer does.


		   EN - Is there anything that should be done regarding an IG writing a
		   letter of support for a WG.

		   ACTION: VK and AR to write a letter of support for OWL 1.1.

	Cool. Hope the above helps give a clearer sense of why OWL 1.1 will be a good thing.

	-Alan