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

Re: OWL 2 Implementation report for OWLlink

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:19:20 +0100
Message-Id: <A5891763-C389-4B7E-BE09-579CC0582D4E@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org, Thorsten Liebig <thorsten.liebig@uni-ulm.de>, Olaf Noppens <olaf.noppens@uni-ulm.de>
To: Marko Luther <luther@docomolab-euro.com>
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 outdated DIG protocol.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  >
> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 September 2009 08:19:58 GMT