Re: [LC response] To Marko Luther

Dear Working Group,

Maybe I did not state that clearly enough in my previous message:

I am satisfied with the Working Group's answer to my comment
  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0048.html 
 >
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts at this point in  
time.

Nevertheless, I still hope to see OWLlink being a part of a future  
version of OWL.

Regards,
Marko Luther


On 24.03.2009, at 09:06, Marko Luther wrote:

> Dear Mr. Horrocks, Ms. Sattler, Working Group,
>
> I acknowledge that communication protocols are not in the scope of  
> the OWL Working Group according to Section 1 (Scope) of the OWL  
> Charter [1]. However, without an axiom-level transport protocol OWL  
> feels to me like HTML without HTTP. I am convinced that  
> standardizing such a protocol could "..easing the adoption of OWL  
> 1.1 features by OWL users and other members of the Semantic Web  
> community.." (cf. Section 2.1 of the OWL Charter [1]) and support  
> advanced infrastructures like stream reasoning [2] and distributed  
> ontology editing [3]. To me it seems that the Manchester Syntax is  
> covered by the Charter in a similar way.
>
> The need for an implementation-neutral communication protocol that  
> goes along OWL is reflected in the number of recent postings about  
> the outdated DIG protocol found at the Pellet, Protege and Topbraid  
> mailing lists [4-7]. The initial implementation of OWLlink as part  
> of RacerPro 1.9.3 (soon to be released) demonstrates not only that  
> it is implementable, but also that for communication intensive  
> applications OWLlink/retraction exchanging OWL/XML axioms via HTTP  
> may outperform even in-memory connections [8].
>
> I would like to suggest to take the OWLlink specification available  
> at <http:\\www.owllink.org> and lift it to a OWL 2 Working Note.  
> OWLlink is defined in terms of a structural specification expressed  
> in UML (initially contributed by Boris Motik), two bindings (HTTP/ 
> XML and HTTP/S-Expression) and a set of extensions (Retraction,  
> Told, OntologyBasedDataAccess, EpistemicGroundedConjunctiveQueries).  
> As OWLlink is extensible, it is open and ready for additions such as  
> a SPARQL/OWL extension.
>
> If needed, it should be possible for me to join the OWL Working  
> Group (as my company is a W3C member) to ensure its finalization  
> before 10/2009.
>
> Best regards,
> Marko Luther
>
> PS: Strange, that I couldn't find any discussion on my OWLlink (or  
> my LC) in the public accessible WG minutes despite the very positive  
> reaction of Alan Ruttenberg on our OWLlink presentation at OWLED'08  
> [9].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html
> [2] http://streamreasoning.org/
> [3] Timothy Redmond et al.: Managing Change: An Ontology Version  
> Control System, In Proc. of OWLED 2008, Karlsruhe, 2008.
> <http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/papers/ 
> owled2008eu_submission_33.pdf>
> [4] <http://lists.owldl.com/pipermail/pellet-users/2009-January/003233.html 
> >
> [5] <https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2009-February/009644.html 
> >
> [6] <http://lists.owldl.com/pipermail/pellet-users/2009-February/003334.html 
> >
> [7] <http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users/browse_thread/thread/9c117caa5467c09f 
> >
> [8] M. Luther et al. "Who the Heck is the Father of Bob?" to appear  
> in Proc. of ESWC'09
> [9] Thorsten Liebig et al.: OWLlink: DIG for OWL 2, In Proc. of  
> OWLED 2008, Karlsruhe, 2008.
> <http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/papers/ 
> owled2008eu_submission_26.pdf>
>
>
> On 16.03.2009, at 18:42, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
>> Dear Marco,
>>
>> Thank you for your comment
>>    <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0048.html 
>> >
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> We acknowledge the importance of implementations and tool support  
>> and, indeed, implementations supporting OWL 2 will be a condition  
>> for the standardization of OWL 2. It is, however, not in the scope  
>> of this working group to standardize communications protocols [1].
>>
>> On the other hand, we are creating a collection of test cases [2]  
>> and would welcome help in the generation and testing of these  
>> cases. So, if you think that OWLlink would be a suitable tool for  
>> testing our test cases, then it would be great if you could  
>> coordinate with the working group, for example Markus Kroetzsch and  
>> Mike Smith.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html
>>
>> [2] http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/OWL_2_Test_Cases
>>
>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org 
>> > (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment  
>> please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the  
>> working group's response to your comment.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Uli Sattler
>> p.p. Ian Horrocks
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Marko Luther
>
> DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
> Landsberger Strasse 312, 80687 Munich, Germany
> Geschäftsführer: Dr. Toru Otsu, Dr. Narumi Umeda, Kazushige Yoshida
> Amtsgericht München, HRB 132967
>

--
Dr. Marko Luther
Phone:  +49-89-56824-204  mailto:luther@docomolab-euro.com
Fax:      +49-89-56824-301  <http://www.docomolab-euro.com>
Mobile: +49 172-855 7763

DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 312, 80687 Munich, Germany
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Toru Otsu, Dr. Narumi Umeda, Kazushige Yoshida
Amtsgericht München, HRB 132967