- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:35:04 +0000
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- CC: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Apologies for a minor aside (I feel an obligation to correct a possible misunderstanding of Jena documentation) Michael Schneider wrote: > > I recently found that the Jena-OWL reasoner is actually a restricted > OWL-Full reasoner, since it is an extension of the Jena-RDFS reasoner: > > <http://jena.sourceforge.net/inference/index.html#OWLcoverage> > > "Since RDFS is not a subset of the OWL/Lite or OWL/DL languages > the Jena implementation is an incomplete implementation of OWL/full." > > Drawback: It doesn't fully support every OWL feature. But this has not to do > with being an OWL-Full reasoner, but instead, AFAIK, has to do with the > specific rule based approach the family of Jena reasoners apply. I think I would phrase the last sentence as [[ While it is inevitable that an OWL-Full reasoner cannot generate every OWL Full entailment and non-entailment, the family of Jena reasoners are also limited by the choice to use a rule based approach. ]] i.e. there are theoretical limitations, and the Jena reasoner is further limited by practical considerations due to some fundamental design choices (which I think were quite sensible and defensible, but don't particularly wish to do so now) I suppose it depends what you mean by a 'feature' of OWL. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 11:35:31 UTC