- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:28:48 -0400
- To: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "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> wrot
> e:
>
> > 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 interfac
> es.
Good to hear. When using the Jena interface, you're saying Pellet has
its own complete implementation of the mapping-to-rdf spec? Have you
compared the two parsing systems, side by side, on all inputs, or
anything like that?
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:28:58 UTC