Re: OWL 2 Implementation report for OWLlink

Done -- sorry about that!

Thanks,
Ian


On 22 Sep 2009, at 22:38, Thorsten Liebig wrote:

> 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 the outdated DIG protocol.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 Wednesday, 23 September 2009 08:13:42 UTC