- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:20:59 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Ian Horrocks<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > 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. What are they using for parsers? Given the setup with P4 as example, my expectation would have been that they both use the OWLAPI to the parsing. -Alan > > 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 18:22:00 UTC