Order allow,deny
Deny from all
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
DirectoryIndex index.php
RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule . /index.php [L]
Order allow,deny
Deny from all
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
DirectoryIndex index.php
RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule . /index.php [L]
OWL Implementations
OWL Implementations as of December 2003 (Historical)
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 the
exit 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
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
two complete OWL Lite consistency checkers (i.e. 2 which pass almost all OWL
Lite consistency and inconsistency tests and moreover claim logical
completeness)
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.
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:
