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

Re: OWL1.1 APis

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:56:34 +0000
Message-Id: <67eba5c1deea3f0ae842a4f0b2f0caa9@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "fabrizio fasano" <hank7v@libero.it>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

I think that this nicely illustrates the incredible success of the 
whole OWL effort, and of tool and infrastructure developers in 
particular: they have clearly succeeded in not just raising, but 
completely recalibrating user expectations of ontology languages and 
ontology based systems. This is as it should be for a rapidly maturing 
technology. Having said that, I agree with Bijan that, given the 
relatively early stage of OWL 1.1's development, tool support is 
actually pretty impressive.


On 5 Dec 2006, at 13:13, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2006, at 14:37, fabrizio fasano wrote:
>> dear community
>> I've an idea now of editor and reasoners support to OWL1.1
>> it seems to me there is at the moment a BASIC support, being missing 
>> some constructs.
> Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. The reasoner support is quite good 
> with at least two reasoners covering pretty close to all of the 
> language. I can't speak off hand for FaCT++, but Pellet supports it 
> all with the exception of n-ary datatype properties, though that will 
> come.
> 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.
> Swoop is sort of waiting on the revision to the OWL API, which is 
> underway. Protege (owl) is moving to a new architecture, with the 
> Manchester variant at least based on the OWL API.
>>  What is the state of art of APIs about OWL1.1 ?
>> (ex. wonderweb, jena, protege, ... )
> 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.
>> will some of these projects support COMPLETElY owl1.1 specifications 
>> in the next year?
> Well, most definitely. But was there doubt? I really wouldn't call the 
> reasoner support *basic* for example. It's really quite complete. And 
> if you compare it to the state of OWL implementation even after CR, 
> it's quite favorable and we've not even made it a submission yet.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 10:56:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC