- From: Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:18:01 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- CC: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, bonatti@na.infn.it, edbark@nist.gov
Bijan Parsia wrote: >> Shouldn't be OWL added to the list as well? > > > Which species of OWL? I had OWL-DL in mind. >> In general, it seems that IETF process of accepting Internet >> standards/RFCs (the requirement for prior implementation and testing) >> works well. > > > The W3C has a similar requirement. The CR (candidate recommendation) > phase is where you are required to gather implementation experience of > the complete design. Hence, while designing, you look for current > implementation experience in anticipation of the CR. This was, in fact, > done for OWL, esp. the DL fragment. My organization (the MIND Lab) > started our OWL DL ++ reasoner Pellet specifically to show that > traditional tableau reasoners were not *that* difficult to implement > (i.e., there had been some concern in the WebOnt group that only people > deep in the DL community could do it; not so). So, according to the above, is my understanding correct that Pellet fully supports OWL-DL? Or is it just a demo, that it *could* be implemented? Regards, Igor
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2006 09:18:26 UTC