Preliminary Programme

November 10
November 11
OWL Syntax
  1. M.Horridge, N.Drummond, J.Goodwin. A.Rector, R.Stevens and H.Wan. The Manchester OWL Syntax
  2. S.Bechofer, T.Liebig, M.Luther, O.Noppens,P.F. Patel-Schneider, B.Suntisrivaraporn, A. Turhan and T. Weithoener. DIG 2.0: Towards a flexible Interface for Description Logic Reasoners.
  3. B. Motik and I. Horrocks.  Problems with OWL Syntax
  4. P.A. Fadhil  and V. Haarslev. GLOO: A Graphical  Query Language for OWL Ontologies
Reasoning Techniques
  1. C. Lutz. Reasoning Techniques for Ontology Design
  2. C. Halashek-Wiener and Y. Katz. Belief Base Revision for Expressive Description Logics
  3. C. Elsenbroich, O. Kutz and U. Sattler. A Case for Abductive Reasoning over Ontologies
  4. V. Kolovski, B. Parsia and Y. Katz. Implementing OWL Defaults
Coffee Break
Coffee Break
Life Science Applications
  1. A. Mechouche, C. Golbreich and B. Gibaud. Towards a Hybrid System for Brain MRI Descriptions
  2. A. Ruttenberg, J. Rees and J. Zucker. A Semantic Critique of BioPAX
  3. P. Anita, C. Liang, B. Lauser and M. Sini. From AGROVOC to the Agricultural Ontology Service/ Concept Server: An OWL Model for Creating Ontologies in the Agricultural Domain
  4. R. Stevens, P. Lord and A. Gibson. Something Nasty in the Woodshed: the Public Domain Model.
  5. N. Drummond, A. Rector, R. Stevens, G. Moulton, M. Horridge, H. Wang and J. Seidenberg. Putting OWL in Order: Patters for Sequences in OWL
Applications in Science,  Geography and Industry
  1. D. McGuiness and P. Fox. Semantically-enabled Visual Observatories
  2. Y. Gil, J. Kim, V. Ratnakar, E. Deelman. Wings for Pegasus: A Semantic Approach for Creating Very Large Scientific Workflows
  3. C. Dolbear, G. Hart and J. Goodwin. What OWL has done for Geography and why we Don't Need it for Map Reading
  4. A. Kershenbaum, A. Fokoue, C. Patel, C. Welty, E. Schonberg, J. Cimino, L. Ma, K. Srinivas, R. Schloss, and J. William Murdock. A View of OWL from the Field: Use-cases and Experiences
  5. R. Hoekstra, J. Liem, B. Bredewerg and J. Breuker. Requirements for Representing Situations.
OWL 1.1 and Beyond
  1. M. Horridge and D. Tsarkov. Supporting Early Adoption of OWL 1.1 with Protege-OWL and FaCT++
  2. M. Kroetzsch, S. Rudolph and P. Hitzler.  On the Complexity of Horn Description Logics
  3. D. Calvanese, G. de Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, A. Poggi and R. Rosati. Linking Data to Ontologies: The Description Logic DL-Lite_A
  4.  J. Bao and V. Honavar. Adapt OWL as a Modular Ontology Language
Evaluation and Tools
  1. M. Dzbor, E. Motta, C. Buil, J.M Gomez, O. Goerlitz and H. Lewen. Developing Ontologies in OWL: An Observational Study.
  2. V. Chaudhri, B. Jarrold and J. Pacheco. Exporting Knowledge Bases into OWL
  3. Q. Lu, V. Haarslev. OntoKBEval: DL-based Evaluation of Ontologies.
  4. R. Garcia-Castro, A. Gomez-Perez and S. David. Defining a Benchmark Suite for Evaluating the Import of OWL Lite Ontologies
Coffee Break
Coffee Break
Ongoing and Future Standarization Efforts
  1. B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, B. Parsia, P. Patel-Schneider and U. Sattler. Next Steps for OWL
  2. Report on  the SPARQL query language (by B. Parsia and K. Clark.)
  3. Report on the RIF Working Group and extending OWL with rules.
  4. Open Discussion on Future Standarization Efforts
Business Meeting and Closing
Tool Demos, Poster Session and Buffet Dinner