An attempt at listing new features of OWL 1.1, and giving some, brief, rationale. The rationale may be links to MotivationsFromLiterature
Structure Feature Details OWL 1.0 OWL 1.1 Note -- Disjoint axiom for set 100+ disjoint Atom types ☹ ☻
Structure Feature Details OWL 1.0 OWL 1.1 Note 2’ Amine Group Negation hasBondWith exactly 1 HydrogenAtom ☹ ☻ CWA
@@@ Jeremy doesn't understand this one
Qualified Cardinality Restrictions
Structure Feature Details OWL 1.0 OWL 1.1 Note 1’ Amine Group Qualified Cardinality Restriction hasBondWith exactly 2 HydrogenAtom ☹ ☻ CWA
Local Reflexivity Restrictions
Structure Feature Details OWL 1.0 OWL 1.1 Note Cyclic Local reflexive isConnectedTo “Self” ☹ ☻
Types of Properties
New Relationships between Properties
property chain inclusion axioms
- Without [property chain inclusion axioms], adoption of OWL by the SNOMED community would have required awkward workarounds with their attendant complications and complexities - effectively killing movement in that direction. With [them], we have a clear path to using OWL 1.1 for further development and integration with other biomedical ontologies.
Structure Feature Details OWL 1.0 OWL 1.1 Note Complex role inclusion axiom hasPart ○ isLocatedIn → isLocatedIn ☹ ☻
New Datatype Mechanisms
OWL mechanisms for user-defined datatypes
- Representing Data Ranges Though not listed as a requirement, the possibility to define data ranges would have been useful for e.g., representing values on a scale from 1 to 10. There is currently no support for this in OWL, which was not something that we had anticipated when we considered using OWL. However, in the proposed OWL 1.1, support for value ranges is included.
individual - class
individual - property
class - property
object property - data property
- The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) is currently working on an additional set of Dublin Core metadata (and a full alignment to RDF). This also includes defining ranges for their new set of properties (like “subject”).
- At the moment they use RDFS only (eg, all their classes are defined as RDFS classes and not OWL classes) but they would like to leave the door open for (1) making their terms available in OWL at some point and (2) make it available in OWL DL so that DC terms could be included in other OWL DL ontologies, eventually. What makes sense for their usage pattern is to be able to say “this property’s range is either a literal or this and this class”.
annotation property - data property
- For example, it is desirable that an "annotation property" for an editing time stamp should have a range that is xsd:date, or, for SKOS, we would like to be create subproperties of rdfs:label.
@@@TODO follow up to find earlier user requests