W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: OWL1.1 APis

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:07:19 -0800
Message-ID: <457617C7.3050800@topquadrant.com>
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org

> I would describe editor support as preliminary, at least in Swoop and 
> Protege (but that's partly an artifact of where they are in their 
> development cycles). TopBraid support was waiting on the RDF 
> serialization, but Holger said that, given that support, it is 
> straightforward.

Yes, you can in principle already edit arbitrary OWL 1.1 files with 
TopBraid, although you'd need to work on triple level to exploit most 
new language features.  You'd just need to load an OWL file that defines 
the additional language elements (system metamodel), and the UI will 
automatically be ready to provide input widgets etc.

As we all know and appreciate, OWL 1.1 is currently in a rather early 
stage, so any tool support needs to track the language standardization 
efforts as a moving target.  Most of the OWL 1.1 work seems to be done 
in conjunction with researchers from Manchester, and the tools created 
there will follow the bleeding edge as part of their research mission. 
Commercial, non-experimental tools such as TopBraid will follow them 
once it makes sense to build on a reasonably stable foundation.  With 
the current good progress in the 1.1 group, I guess we can provide 
complete 1.1 support in TopBraid in January or February.


> Well, OWL API support will definitely be there. We're already happier 
> having a non-fame based level (the framey flavor is supported as views 
> over the axiomatic ones). Jena support should be straightforward and I 
> imagine that Holger, using Jena, could comment more about that.

Yes, as already written elsewhere [1], all triple-based APIs such as 
Jena and Sesame already support OWL 1.1 on a syntactic level, and Evren 
has given an example [2] on how to build OWL 1.1 constructs with Jena. 
The Jena mailing list may be more helpful on insights on the Jena 
developers' strategy for OWL 1.1, but it would be fairly straight 
forward to extend the higher level Jena OntModel API with 1.1 specific 
classes.  In how far they would want to support OWL 1.1 reasoning in 
their built-in reasoners is certainly a different question, but with 
Pellet's Jena bridge this should not really be a show stopper for Jena 
users.

Holger

[1] 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2006-November/000786.html

[2] 
http://lists.mindswap.org/pipermail/pellet-users/2006-November/001120.html
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 01:07:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT