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

Re: OWL1.1 APis

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:52:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4576A0D5.4050805@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Holger Knublauch wrote:

>> 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 principle you may be right though some aspects look a little tricky 
to tie to up with our existing API support (handling of datatypes for 

> In how far they would want to support OWL 1.1 reasoning in 
> their built-in reasoners is certainly a different question, 

Had OWL 1.1 had some level of OWL/full compatibility (which I guess 
would have required the RDF mapping to directly expose the punning) then 
some Jena native reasoning support might have made sense. However, given 
how big a break OWL 1.1 is from OWL then it's not clear to me that we 
can do anything useful on that front in a sufficiently backward 
compatible way.

 > but with
 > Pellet's Jena bridge this should not really be a show stopper for Jena
 > users.

Quite so.

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 11:13:23 UTC

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