- From: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:10:01 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, 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 14:20, Alan Ruttenberg<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Pellet supports parsing OWL 2 RDF/XML from either its OWLAPI or Jena interfaces. -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:10:42 UTC