W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > September 2009

OWL 2 Implementation report for OWLlink

From: Marko Luther <luther@docomolab-euro.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:21:52 +0200
Message-Id: <360C59C3-7536-49A5-A865-3092422E49C2@docomolab-euro.com>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Cc: sandro@w3.org, Thorsten Liebig <thorsten.liebig@uni-ulm.de>, Olaf Noppens <olaf.noppens@uni-ulm.de>
Hello,

we would be happy if OWLlink could be listed under the category APIs  
at <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations>.

OWLlink (<http://www.owllink.org/) is an implementation-neutral  
protocol for communication
between OWL 2 components. It specifies how to manage reasoning engines  
and their
knowledge bases, how to assert axioms, and how to query inference  
results. OWLlink is
extensible and allows to add required functionality to the protocol on  
demand.

We are currently in the process of revising the OWLlink specification  
as of October 2008 (based on the OWL 2 Specification of April 11th  
2008) and plan to release an update this October, which will be fully  
aligned with the final OWL 2 Specification.

Regards,
The OWLlink team

---

     1.  Authors (in alphabetical order)

Thorsten Liebig, Ulm University
Marko Luther, DOCOMO Euro-Labs, Munich
Olaf Noppens, Ulm University

     2.  The name of your system, a URL for its website (if any), and a
         one-sentence description.

Name: OWLlink
Link: http://www.owllink.org

The OWLlink is an extensible protocol defined on top of OWL 2 for the  
communication among OWL 2 aware systems intended to replace the  
outdated DIG protocol.


     3.  Which profile(s) it implements (DL, EL, QL, RL, or Full).  We
         would appreciate some brief commentary about why you chose  
those
         profiles, and what sort of implementation techniques you are
         using.

Covers all of OWL 2.

     4.  Which semantics you implement (direct or rdf-based), and
         (optionally) why.

Supports all OWL 2 semantics.

     5.  Do you believe your system currently conforms to the OWL 2
         Candidate Recommendation?  Does it pass all the test cases for
         your profile?  If not, which features does it lack and/or which
         test cases does it not yet pass?  Do you have plans to make it
         conformant, and make it pass all the test cases?

Does not apply here. However, OWLlink was carefully designed to fully  
conform with the latest OWL 2 specification.

     6.  Did you implement the "at risk" features, owl:rational and
         rdf:XMLLiteral?  If not, do you intend to, or do you think we
         should remove them from OWL 2?

Does not apply.

     7.  Finally, we'd appreciate your evaluation of whether the OWL 2
         Candidate Recommendation is ready to proceed along the  
standards
         track toward being a W3C Recommendation.  If not, please be  
sure
         to tell us what problems you think we need to address.

We believe OWL2 is ready to proceed to Recommendation.



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

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




Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 18:58:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 September 2009 18:58:07 GMT