Overview
- Background: OWL, DAML, and W3C up to April 2003
- W3C Process Review
- OWL Developments in the last six months
- OWL Opportunities
- Semantic Web Opportunities
OWL Development: Background
| 2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
| Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
| DAML kick-off |
| | joint-committee starts |
| | DAML+OIL 2nd release |
| | DAML+OIL submitted to W3C |
| | 1st WG ftf at Bell Labs |
| | 1st Working Draft: Requirements |
| | 1st Working Drafts: Reference, Guide, ... |
| | Last Call
about 50 issues resolved
|
| | Apr DAML PI meeting |
see also: WG history and records
OWL Development: W3C Process
cf. World Wide Web Consortium Process Document
- Last Call: Working Group claims all issues resolved
- Candidate Recommendation: W3C Director
- confirms that community design review is sufficient
- calls for implementation experience
- sets exit criteria
- Proposed Recommendation: Director:
- sees sufficient implementation experience
- calls for final W3C member review
- Recommendation: W3C Endorses the spec for wide deployment
- What next?
OWL Development: since April
| 2003 |
| Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
| | Last Call |
| | DAML PI meeting |
| | July 2003: WG charter extended thru Jan 2004 |
| |
Aug 2003: Candidate Recommendation
|
| |
DAML PI, ISWC
*you are here
|
OWL Candidate Recommendation Announcement
OWL Tests
- WG has developed over 250 tests
- mostly issue-driven, but several stress tests etc.
-
each test is described in RDF:
- inputs, outputs
- type (entailment, inconsistency, ...)
- datatypes
OWL Tests Results
- system developers report results in RDF via HTTP
- results are aggregated (i.e. RDF graphs are conjoined)
- OWL Test Results is a report generated from these data
developed by by Sandro Hawke sandro@w3.org
OWL Tests Results: Benefits
... of an automated Semantic Web approach
OWL Tests Results: Join the Fun!
supported by by Sandro Hawke sandro@w3.org
OWL Candidate Rec. Exit Criteria
OWL Test Results show we're pretty much there:
- dependency on RDF Core specs, esp. RDF Semantics:
10 Oct drafts look good so far
- two complete OWL Lite consistency checkers:
candidates include
Hoolet and Pellet.
- Each test (except the extra credit tests) is demonstrated to be passed by some implementation:
DONE
- two reasoners implementing (different) substantial subsets of OWL DL:
candidates include Cerebra, Jena2, Pellet, WonderWeb
- two reasoners implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and passing at least 80% of the postive entailment tests:
candidates include Euler, Jena2, Pellet
- two owl syntax checkers passing all tests:
candidates include OWLP, Pellet, WonderWeb, and Jena2
What next? Old Business
Interest Group discussion:
A topic: RDF and (X)HTML
EmbeddingRDFinHTML
-
approaches vs. requirements
- sticking RDF in XHTML vs. DTD checking
- sticking RDF in comments: (HotComments antipattern)
- link to separate RDF file vs. pragmatics
- XSLT extraction ... ?
- task force started May 2003:
public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf list archive; contact: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
What next? New Business
Summary
-
Get in on OWL deployment and outreach!
- Thanks to those that have already!
- Best Practices, Community Building
- W3C seeking input on Rules, Query, Services
Stop! You're done. Go Back
@@w3t reviewers: if you want a peek at my take-home/thesis, see summary slide
@@What stuff is ralph covering? I assume he's covering advanced development (cwm updates, Annotea, /TR/ automation? etc. the way Sandro did last time)
Fodder:
discussions:
