MotivationsFromLiterature

OWLED 2007

Various papers from OWL Experiences and Directions 2007 have been classified by [BijanParsia]. This section lists those papers that he associates with OWL 1.1 features.

The summary version of Bijan's table is:

This only contains rows with OWL 1.1 in the type column.

Oral Medicine

Experiences in Modeling Clinical Examinations in Oral Medicine Using OWL Marie Gustafsson and Göran Falkman

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.

Health Care Terminology

An examination of OWL and the requirements of a large health care terminology Kent Spackman

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.

OWL API

http://owled2007.iut-velizy.uvsq.fr/PapersPDF/submission_32.pdf Igniting the OWL 1.1 Touch Paper: The OWL API] Matthew Horridge, Sean Bechhofer, and Olaf Noppens

In practice, the benefits of having an axiom based representation cannot be overstated. Direct experience of developing tools such as expressivity checkers, species validators and translators for reasoners suggest implementations are much cleaner when dealing with axioms.

As part of the OWL 1.1 specification several tractable fragments have been identified. The API includes a fragment detector to determine if an ontology, or indeed a set of axioms, belong to one of these fragments. Additionally, a DL expressivity checker is provided, which determines the particular Description Logic that an ontology corresponds to.

@@@ These two quotes correspond to the features that Bijan highlights in his chart but do not correspond to any specific feature from Features.

Chemical Functional Groups

Describing chemical functional groups in OWL-DL for the classification of chemical compounds Natalia Villanueva-Rosales, Michel Dumontier

Structure	Feature	Details	OWL 1.0	OWL 1.1	Note
Amine Group	Existential Restriction	hasBondWith some Atom	☻	☻
Hydrocarbon	Universal Restriction	hasProperPart only Carbon or Hydrogen	☻	☻	CWA
1’ Amine Group	Qualified Cardinality Restriction	hasBondWith exactly 2 HydrogenAtom	☹	☻	CWA
2’ Amine Group	Negation	hasBondWith exactly 1 HydrogenAtom	☹	☻	CWA
--	Disjoint axiom for set	100+ disjoint Atom types	☹	☻
--	Symmetric role	hasBondWith	☻	☻
	Complex role inclusion axiom	hasPart ○ isLocatedIn → isLocatedIn	☹	☻
Cyclic	Local reflexive	isConnectedTo “Self”	☹	☻
RingAtom	Partial order		☹	☹