W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2008

Jena reasoner (was Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:35:04 +0000
Message-ID: <47820E68.4070007@hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Apologies for a minor aside
(I feel an obligation to correct a possible misunderstanding of Jena 

Michael Schneider wrote:
> I recently found that the Jena-OWL reasoner is actually a restricted
> OWL-Full reasoner, since it is an extension of the Jena-RDFS reasoner:
>   <http://jena.sourceforge.net/inference/index.html#OWLcoverage>
>   "Since RDFS is not a subset of the OWL/Lite or OWL/DL languages 
>   the Jena implementation is an incomplete implementation of OWL/full."  
> Drawback: It doesn't fully support every OWL feature. But this has not to do
> with being an OWL-Full reasoner, but instead, AFAIK, has to do with the
> specific rule based approach the family of Jena reasoners apply. 

I think I would phrase the last sentence as
While it is inevitable that an OWL-Full reasoner cannot generate every 
OWL Full entailment and non-entailment, the family of Jena reasoners are 
also limited by the choice to use a rule based approach.

i.e. there are theoretical limitations, and the Jena reasoner is further 
limited by practical considerations due to some fundamental design 
choices (which I think were quite sensible and defensible, but don't 
particularly wish to do so now)

I suppose it depends what you mean by a 'feature' of OWL.

Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 11:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC