W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

owl 1.0 DL implementation experience

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:53:45 +0000
Message-ID: <45D08D89.2060006@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Another simple question reflecting me having been somewhat out-of-touch 
(particularly having been off sick)

When OWL went to Rec there was still some gaps in the implementation 
experience with OWL DL 1.0. In particular, iirc, there were some gaps in 
the completeness of support for reasoning with nominals.

By understanding is that pellet addressed these. Is that correct?

Are there a number of OWL DL 1.0 implementations that provide sound and 
complete terminating reasoning for all input (of not unreasonable size), 
with practical performance as in horrocks' use of practical in 
'practical reasoning' papers?

It's fairly easy to encode quite difficult problems into OWL DL, and I 
assume that good implementations not only need things like failure 
directed backtracking, but also using techniques like the study of 
automorphism groups, to reduce the search space.

thanks in advance for any help

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 15:54:02 UTC

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