W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > December 2001

RE: Interpreting DAML

From: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:49:42 -0000
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D1ABE14@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Charlie Abela'" <abcharl@maltanet.net>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Charlie Abela [mailto:abcharl@maltanet.net]
> A DAML+OIL ontology can be parsed using various APIs such as DAML API or
Jena, that would give the structure of the ontology. But an interpreter is a
must if one has to make sense out of the structures parsed. By just parsing
the DAML gets you only half way through the process; interpretation has to
be the next step. Correct?

Correct.
 
> There are I suppose ready made interpreters available....

To an extent, yes.

> Which ones are most readily used and also easier to use?

If you download OilEd (http://img.cs.man.ac.uk/oil), you'll find that it can
read DAML+OIL but can also connect to a back-end reasoner such as FaCT
(http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/FaCT) or Cerebra
(http://download.networkinference.com).  That's the system I tend to use ---
unsurprisingly :-).  SHIQ --- the more expressive of the two FaCT engines
--- can handle almost all of DAML+OIL except the datatypes; Cerebra can't do
inverse roles or counted quantifiers but can do some datatypes.

> What issues need to be considered if one wants to implement or extend an
interpreter?

It's a Bloody Difficult Job.  I compare it to the relational database market
--- why implement/extend a RDBMS when all you want to do is use one?

		- Peter
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 10:50:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT