Re: OWL1.1 APis

On 4 Dec 2006, at 14:37, fabrizio fasano wrote:

> dear community
>
> I've an idea now of editor and reasoners support to OWL1.1
> it seems to me there is at the moment a BASIC support, being  
> missing some constructs.

Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. The reasoner support is quite good  
with at least two reasoners covering pretty close to all of the  
language. I can't speak off hand for FaCT++, but Pellet supports it  
all with the exception of n-ary datatype properties, though that will  
come.

I would describe editor support as preliminary, at least in Swoop and  
Protege (but that's partly an artifact of where they are in their  
development cycles). TopBraid support was waiting on the RDF  
serialization, but Holger said that, given that support, it is  
straightforward.

Swoop is sort of waiting on the revision to the OWL API, which is  
underway. Protege (owl) is moving to a new architecture, with the  
Manchester variant at least based on the OWL API.

>  What is the state of art of APIs about OWL1.1 ?
>
> (ex. wonderweb, jena, protege, ... )

Well, OWL API support will definitely be there. We're already happier  
having a non-fame based level (the framey flavor is supported as  
views over the axiomatic ones). Jena support should be  
straightforward and I imagine that Holger, using Jena, could comment  
more about that.

> will some of these projects support COMPLETElY owl1.1  
> specifications in the next year?

Well, most definitely. But was there doubt? I really wouldn't call  
the reasoner support *basic* for example. It's really quite complete.  
And if you compare it to the state of OWL implementation even after  
CR, it's quite favorable and we've not even made it a submission yet.

Cheers,
Bijan.