Re: OWL 2 Implementation report for OWLlink

Done.

Let me know if you want me to change the description of OWLlink (I  
took it from your email).

Ian


On 17 Sep 2009, at 16:21, Marko Luther wrote:

> 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 outdated DIG protocol.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  <http://www.docomolab-euro.com>
> 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 Friday, 18 September 2009 08:19:57 UTC