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

OWL 2 Implementation report - QuOnto

From: Marco Ruzzi <ruzzi@dis.uniroma1.it>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:28:48 +0200
Message-ID: <9bca3ad30908060528n20b18c66o943a544de0c869eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Cc: Giuseppe De Giacomo <degiacomo@dis.uniroma1.it>, Maurizio Lenzerini <lenzerini@dis.uniroma1.it>, Riccardo Rosati <rosati@dis.uniroma1.it>, Domenico Lembo <Domenico.Lembo@dis.uniroma1.it>, Antonella Poggi <poggi@dis.uniroma1.it>, "Claudio Corona [@DIS]" <corona@dis.uniroma1.it>, Domenico Fabio Savo <savo@dis.uniroma1.it>
** OWL 2 Implementation report - QuOnto **

1. Contributors (in alphabetical order)

Claudio Corona, Marco Ruzzi, Domenico Fabio Savo
SAPIENZA University of Rome


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

QuOnto - http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~quonto/
QuOnto is an OWL 2 QL and DLLite reasoner.


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.

QuOnto was originally born as a DLLite implementation. Since the OWL 2
QL profile is based on DLLite, we built a version of QuOnto
specifically tailored for OWL 2 QL.


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

We implement 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 QuOnto is fully conformat, for a restricted set of
datatypes. It passes all required
tests and extra credit tests. Notice that tests actually marked with
*not reported* on the public test case page [1], have been added after
we sent the first results; anyway, we succesfully performed also that
tests.


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?

QuOnto does not support rationals and rdf:XMLLiteral, but we intend to.


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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Suite_Status#OWL_2_QL_Test_Cases

-
Claudio Corona,
Marco Ruzzi,
Domenico Fabio Savo.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 15:03:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 August 2009 15:03:11 GMT