- From: Thorsten Liebig <thorsten.liebig@uni-ulm.de>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:38:40 +0200
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- CC: Marko Luther <luther@docomolab-euro.com>, public-owl-comments@w3.org, Olaf Noppens <olaf.noppens@uni-ulm.de>
Ian, would it possible to change the link behind OWLlink to point to http://www.owllink.org/ (it currently refers back to the list of implementations)? The OWLlink core specification, default HTTP/XML binding and corresponding XML schema should now be aligned with the actual Proposed Recommendation of OWL 2. Regards, Thorsten Ian Horrocks wrote: > 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 outdated DIG protocol.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 Tuesday, 22 September 2009 21:52:52 UTC