OWL Implementations (original) (raw)
OWL Implementations as of December 2003 (Historical)
Contents: Overview | Implementations | Exit Criteria |Features at Risk |Change Log
Overview
This is based on the Request for CR (by Connolly and Hendler), edited by Sandro Hawke. New information during CR is expected to be incorporated.
Implementations of OWL Technology
There is now an RDF-based dynamic summary of results for systems using the OWL Test Suite.
The following implementation experience leads us to believe that once theexit criteria below are met, we will have sufficient implementation experience to validate the design and merit widespread deployment.
- Commercial Ontology Support Tools
Sets of tools that support ontology development, use and management- SNOBASE is an ontology management environment developed by IBM Alphaworks. It provides a mechanism for querying ontologies and a programming interface for interacting with ontologies written in RDF Schema and OWL.
- Network Inference has developed a set of tools around their Cerebra Inference engine that allow for the development and use of OWL ontologies.
- Demos/Portals
These demonstrate deployment related to identified use cases and requirements:- The AKT Portal at the University of Southampton is largely based on ontologies, and is now using OWL.
- The University of Maryland Baltimore County (Finin) has developed two demos using OWL (Finin 7May)
- BioPax - A Data Exchange Format for Biological Pathways has been using OWL
- The W3C tech reports - related to the "multimedia collections" use case
- ( The MINDSWAP project web site) uses OWL to generate web pages and "custom home pages" for members of the research group. (Hendler 6May)
- The OWL-generated Comment Status List submitted for this CR request was generated by a combination of OWL tools.
- Reasoners
- FaCT -- a DL reasoner. see WonderWeb project, Bechhofer 15 Sep.
- Racer -- a DL reasoner. see Horrocks 12Sep
- Cerebra from Network Inference - owl syntax checker, nearly complete OWL DL Horrocks 12Sep
- cwm -- useful but incomplete OWL Full
- Euler -- useful but incomplete OWL Full,see De Roo 11 Jul: 51 / 234 tests
- surnia -- OWL full reasoner based on otter. Hawke 26Aug
- Jena/HP (Reynolds/HP 7 May)will support OWL reasoning.
- Vampire Horrocks 17 Jul - uses a first-order theorem prover to do OWL DL
- Pellet is an OWL Lite reasoner in Java (complete owl lite consistency checker Hendler/Parsia 15Sep).
- OWLLisaKB a rule-based OWL Lite reasoner written in LISP (using Wilbur)
- SWI-Prolog Semantic Web Library contains owl.pl - an OWL reasoning package.
- F-OWL is an f-logic based Owl tool from UMBC.
- E-wallet is an e-commerce and mobile computing tool based on a rule-based OWL reasoner.
- Parser/validators
- owl species validator/parser. seems to be a conforming owl syntax checker per Bechhofer 10Sep
- OWLP seems to be a conforming owl syntax checker, per Patel-Schneider 16Sep
- Jena: almost conforming ( Carroll/HP 6 May )
- BBN OWL Validator
- IC Instance Creator, ConvertToRDF, and SMORE use an OWL parser developed at the University of Maryland MIND Laboratory.
- Editors
- The Protege has developed an OWL plugin.
- Construct from Network Inference Complete OWL-DL (White 15Jul)
- SMORE is a markup tool that produces OWL documents
- cwm .n3 -> .rdf produces conforming OWL Full documents
- Ontologies
- Over 200 DAML ontologies can be converted into OWL using OwlConverter - most of these are in OWL Full
- The NCI cancer ontology,(Paper - pdf link) is an OWL Lite ontology with over 17,000 classes in ontology with close to 500,000 triples.
- UMBC: several ontologies (Finin 7May)
- API
- OWL API (bechover/volz 7 May)
- Jena (Reynolds/HP 7 May)
- Cerebra from network inference
Exit Criteria
When the Working Group requested CR, it suggested the following conditions met before proceeding on to PR. In terms of W3C Process, this is the immediate implementation goal, but of course the real goal is to have available lots of excellent, interoperable, and downright useful OWL systems. These criteria are reproduced here so they can be linked to appropriate implementations as they emerge.
- finish resolving dependency on RDF Core specs, esp. RDF Semantics
note 10 Oct RDF last call drafts - two complete OWL Lite consistency checkers (i.e. 2 which pass almost all OWL Lite consistency and inconsistency tests and moreover claim logical completeness)
candidates include Pellet and Hoolet. - Each test (except the extra credit tests) is demonstrated to be passed by some implementation
stay tuned to OWL test case results - two reasoners implementing (different) substantial subsets of OWL DL
candidates include FaCT,Racer, Cerebra - two reasoners implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and passing at least 80% of the postive entailment tests
Candidates include Euler, Jena, and surnia - two owl syntax checkers passing all tests
candidates include Cerebra, OWLP, OWL validator above
Features at Risk
One technical detail concerning structure reuse in OWL Semantics and Abstract Syntax, Section 4 (Mapping to RDF Graphs)has been identified as "at risk" and subject to change. We expect this change, if made, to simplify rather than complicate implementations, and since it is a relaxation of a current restriction, it will not invalidate or change the meaning of any valid OWL or RDF documents.
The simplification is sketched in sections B.1 and B.2 of aproposal from a 4 March editor's meeting and elaborated somewhat shortly after...
We add to the preamble to the mapping rules words like: [bnode reuse] "When processing an abstract syntax construct corresponding to either the description, restriction or dataRange construct then, if that exact instance of the construct has already occurred then there is at least one blank node already corresponding to the construct. In such a case, the mapping may nondeterministically use any previous result (a blank node) or may apply the mapping rues to the new occurrence."
The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL Full files, to being OWL Lite and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL Lite files:
The following tests would change from being OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL Full files, to being OWL DL and OWL Full (in)consistency tests of OWL DL files:
- disjointWith-004
- disjointWith-006
- disjointWith-008
- I5.26-001
- I5.26-002
- I5.26-003
- I5.26-004
- I5.26-005
The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Lite or OWL DL):
- Restriction-001
- Restriction-004
- equivalentClass-009
- disjointWith-003
- disjointWith-005
- disjointWith-007
- disjointWith-009
The following similar tests would be unchanged (in OWL Full):
Change Log
2003-08-18
Constructed this document out of the Request for CR. (sandro@w3.org)
2003-08-19
Added at-risk section, mostly from the Request for CR. (connolly@w3.org and sandro@w3.org)
2003-09-09
Added link to test results page. (sandro@w3.org)
2003-09-16
integrated some implementation feedback: claims of completeness, etc. (connolly)
Sandro Hawke Id:impls.html,v1.182004/12/0613:27:54sandroExpId: impls.html,v 1.18 2004/12/06 13:27:54 sandro Exp Id:impls.html,v1.182004/12/0613:27:54sandroExp