CR Exit Criteria

From OWL
Revision as of 17:44, 27 May 2009 by IanHorrocks (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

The goal of the CR phase is to demonstrate the existence of multiple interoperable and practically useful OWL 2 systems. As a minimum, the WG suggest that the following conditions should be met.

  1. Resolve dependencies on rdf:text (currently at Last Call) and XSD 1.1 Datatypes (currently at Candidate Recommendation). Note that rdf:text is marked as "at risk", and may be renamed, replaced, or have technical details modified as a result of ongoing work of the joint OWL/RIF working group determining its specification.
  2. For OWL 2 Full:
    • Two different implementations of an OWL 2 Full entailment checker. Note that as per Conformance, these must be sound reasoners, but need not be complete.
  3. For OWL 2 DL:
    • Two different implementations of an OWL 2 DL entailment checker.
    • For each of the standard OWL 2 DL test cases, at least two implementations that pass the test and which claim to be conformant OWL 2 DL entailment checkers.
  4. For OWL 2 Profiles (EL, QL and RL):
    • Two different implementations of an OWL 2 EL entailment checker, one of which can deal with very large ontologies
    • Two different implementations of an OWL 2 QL entailment checker, one of which is implemented using (SQL) query rewriting
    • Two different implementations of an OWL 2 RL entailment checker, one of which is implemented using rule-based technologies


  1. Some of these criteria depend on the OWL 2 test suite, which is expected to continue to evolve. For the purposes of these criteria, we will only consider "Approved" tests which are not "Extra-Credit", and which were approved before some cut-off date, to be determined later, some time during CR.

OWL 1 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.

  1. finish resolving dependency on RDF Core specs, esp. RDF Semantics
    • note 10 Oct RDF last call drafts
  2. 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.
  3. Each test (except the extra credit tests) is demonstrated to be passed by some implementation
    • stay tuned to OWL test case results
  4. two reasoners implementing (different) substantial subsets of OWL DL
  5. two reasoners implementing useful subsets of OWL Full and passing at least 80% of the postive entailment tests
    • Candidates include Euler, Jena, and surnia
  6. two owl syntax checkers passing all tests
    • candidates include Cerebra, OWLP, OWL validator above