W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: need a list of systems parsing OWL2 RDF/XML

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:05:24 +0100
Message-Id: <7E16AC5B-F516-427D-B0C5-0884704677CD@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
At least HermiT and Pellet are able to operate completely  
independently -- they can take an OWL 2 ontology in RDF/XML format  
and check if it is satisfiable. The use of Mike's test harness is  
merely a convenience.

Ian


On 29 Jul 2009, at 18:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> Looking at the test results, it appears that there are a number of
>> systems that are passing test cases and thus must be doing parsing.
>
> Pointer?
>
> Last I heard (and of course I may have missed something), Mike  
> Smith was
> doing all the testing, using an OWLAPI to drive reasoners.  That setup
> obviously does not address my concern.
>
>      -- Sandro
>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>> Subject: need a list of systems parsing OWL2 RDF/XML
>> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:54:04 -0500
>>
>>>
>>> Are there any systems which parse all the the OWL2 test cases,  
>>> and claim
>>> to parse all OWL 2 ontologies (from the RDF/XML syntax)?  I expect
>>> OWLAPI can do the parsing; I don't know if the existing "1.1"  
>>> code is
>>> complete, though, or when "version 3" will be out.  And even if it's
>>> perfect, we still need another one....
>>>
>>> I asked this whimsically a few days ago, and I haven't heard any  
>>> systems
>>> named yet.  It is a serious question; I don't think we can exit  
>>> CR if
>>> all the passing systems use the same library for parsing (since it
>>> doesn't show multiple implementations of the mapping-to-rdf spec).
>>>
>>>     -- Sandro
>>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 18:06:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 July 2009 18:06:06 GMT