- From: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:07:29 -0400
- To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Below is the implementation report for Pellet. This is mostly to verify that the information in [1] is correct. Regards, Evren Sirin Senior Researcher Clark & Parsia, LLC [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations OWL 2 Implementation report, Pellet 1. Contributors (in alphabetical order) Clark & Parsia LLC personnel 2. The name of your system, a URL for its website (if any), and a one-sentence description. Pellet http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/ Pellet is an open source reasoner for OWL 2 in Java. Pellet implements a highly optimised tableau algorithm for OWL DL; and a specialized classification algorithm for OWL EL; and a query-rewriting algorithm for QL (will be available in a forthcoming release). 3. Which profile(s) it implements (DL, EL, QL, RL, or Full). We would appreciate some brief commentary about why you chose those profiles, and what sort of implementation techniques you are using. Pellet supports OWL DL, EL and QL. 4. Which semantics you implement (direct or rdf-based), and (optionally) why. Direct semantics. 5. Do you believe your system currently conforms to the OWL 2 Candidate Recommendation? Does it pass all the test cases for your profile? If not, which features does it lack and/or which test cases does it not yet pass? Do you have plans to make it conformant, and make it pass all the test cases? We believe that Pellet conforms to the OWL 2 specification. The only failing tests as of today are due to bugs in the software and will be fixed in the next few days. 6. Did you implement the "at risk" features, owl:rational and rdf:XMLLiteral? If not, do you intend to, or do you think we should remove them from OWL 2? Pellet supports these features. 7. Finally, we'd appreciate your evaluation of whether the OWL 2 Candidate Recommendation is ready to proceed along the standards track toward being a W3C Recommendation. If not, please be sure to tell us what problems you think we need to address. We see no problems with proceeding to Recommendation.
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 17:08:29 UTC