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

CEL: OWL 2 Implementation report

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:33:56 -0400
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <8655.1249504436@waldron>

[ There seems to be some problem with the mailing list software, so I'm
forwarding this, to get it in the archives. At some point the original
may get unstuck and appear as well. ]


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CEL: OWL 2 Implementation report
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:53:08 +0200
From: A.-Y. Turhan <turhan@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org

Hello,


    1.  Your name, affiliation, and (optionally) the names of other
        people who helped with the implementation.

Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn, SIIT, Thammasat University, Thailand
Anni-Yasmin Turhan, TU Dresden, Germany
Julian Mendez, TU Dresden, Germany


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

CEL (see http://code.google.com/p/cel/ )

CEL implements, unlike other modern DL reasoners, a polynomial-time
algorithm for the classification of EL ontologies.




    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.

CEL implements (a subset of) OWL EL only.

CEL implements a polynomial time algorithm specifically tailored to EL
(or rather EL++) as described in [1]. CEL also supports supplemental
reasoning features like incremental classification, modularization and
axiom pinpointing. Moreover, the OWL API wrapper for CEL has eventually
become available, so now you can use CEL as the backend reasoner from
within Protege.


[1] Franz Baader, Sebastian Brandt, and Carsten Lutz.  Pushing the EL
Envelope Further. In Kendall Clark and Peter F. Patel-Schneider,
editors,  In Proceedings of the OWLED 2008 DC Workshop on OWL:
Experiences and Directions, 2008.


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

CEL implements 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?

CEL is conformant with those parts that are implemented in the system.
CEL cannot handle ontologies that contain nominals.

CEL passes all tests that do not include the above mentioned unsupported
feature. For the next major version of CEL it is planned to include the
missing features.


    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?

CEL does not implement 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 believe OWL2 is ready to proceed to Recommendation.


Regards, Anni
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 20:34:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 August 2009 20:34:20 GMT