- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:05:24 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
At least HermiT and Pellet are able to operate completely independently -- they can take an OWL 2 ontology in RDF/XML format and check if it is satisfiable. The use of Mike's test harness is merely a convenience. Ian On 29 Jul 2009, at 18:51, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> Looking at the test results, it appears that there are a number of >> systems that are passing test cases and thus must be doing parsing. > > Pointer? > > Last I heard (and of course I may have missed something), Mike > Smith was > doing all the testing, using an OWLAPI to drive reasoners. That setup > obviously does not address my concern. > > -- Sandro > >> peter >> >> >> >> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> >> Subject: need a list of systems parsing OWL2 RDF/XML >> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:54:04 -0500 >> >>> >>> Are there any systems which parse all the the OWL2 test cases, >>> and claim >>> to parse all OWL 2 ontologies (from the RDF/XML syntax)? I expect >>> OWLAPI can do the parsing; I don't know if the existing "1.1" >>> code is >>> complete, though, or when "version 3" will be out. And even if it's >>> perfect, we still need another one.... >>> >>> I asked this whimsically a few days ago, and I haven't heard any >>> systems >>> named yet. It is a serious question; I don't think we can exit >>> CR if >>> all the passing systems use the same library for parsing (since it >>> doesn't show multiple implementations of the mapping-to-rdf spec). >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 18:06:05 UTC