- From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:35:26 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 19:53 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Some of the documents make BC claims like: > > """" Every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF, so every OWL > 1.1 ontology in RDF is a valid OWL Full ontology. The RDF syntax of > OWL 1.1 is backwards-compatible with OWL DL, this is, every OWL DL > ontology in RDF is a valid OWL 1.1 ontology.""" > > It would be good to verify these. Some verification based on C&P's implementation experience: (As it is defined in the current docs) OWL 1.1 can be loaded into Pellet using the OWLAPI, which does not have different modes for OWL DL and OWL 1.1 operation. When using OWLAPI + Pellet for the DL portions of the OWL test suite all tests are passed (given a few exceptions due to reasonable memory constraints and other issues that are not 1.1 related). I.e, for one deployed OWL 1.1 system (OWLAPI + Pellet) reasoning over OWL DL gives results consistent with the OWL DL test suite, and does so without any special action to insure backwards compatibility. Pellet paired with its Jena loader produces similar results. Also, OwlSight [1] uses OWLAPI + Pellet and supports 1.1 and maintains full backwards compatibility without any special code. -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia [1] http://pellet.owldl.com/ontology-browser/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 21:35:17 UTC