W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > August 2009

Pellet implementation report

From: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:07:29 -0400
Message-ID: <cbf390380908051007o274c89cdp45b4bb24f3c422e@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Below is the implementation report for Pellet. This is mostly to
verify that the information in [1] is correct.

Regards,
Evren Sirin

Senior Researcher
Clark & Parsia, LLC

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations


OWL 2 Implementation report, Pellet

1. Contributors (in alphabetical order)

Clark & Parsia LLC personnel

2.  The  name of your system,  a URL for  its website (if any),  and a
one-sentence description.

Pellet
http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/

Pellet is an open source reasoner for OWL 2 in Java. Pellet implements
a highly optimised tableau algorithm for OWL DL; and a specialized
classification algorithm for OWL EL; and a query-rewriting algorithm for
QL (will be available in a forthcoming release).

3.  Which profile(s) it implements (DL, EL, QL, RL, or Full).  We
would appreciate some brief commentary about why you chose those
profiles, and what sort of implementation techniques you are using.

Pellet supports OWL DL, EL and QL.

4.  Which semantics you implement (direct or rdf-based), and
(optionally) why.

Direct semantics.

5.  Do you believe your system currently conforms to the OWL 2
Candidate Recommendation?  Does it pass all the test cases for your
profile?  If not, which features does it lack and/or which test cases
does it not yet pass?  Do you have plans to make it conformant, and
make it pass all the test cases?

We believe that Pellet conforms to the OWL 2 specification. The only
failing tests as of today are due to bugs in the software and will be
fixed in the next few days.

6.  Did you implement the "at risk" features, owl:rational and
rdf:XMLLiteral?  If not, do you intend to, or do you think we should
remove them from OWL 2?

Pellet supports these features.

7.  Finally, we'd appreciate your evaluation of whether the OWL 2
Candidate Recommendation is ready to proceed along the standards track
toward being a W3C Recommendation.  If not, please be sure to tell us
what problems you think we need to address.

We see no problems with proceeding to Recommendation.
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 17:08:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 August 2009 17:08:29 GMT