- From: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:43:29 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- 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 15:28, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote: > Good to hear. When using the Jena interface, you're saying Pellet has > its own complete implementation of the mapping-to-rdf spec? It has an implementation of parsing from the Jena RDF API into the Pellet internal representation. It has an implementation that translates from the OWLAPI to the Pellet internal representation. These two do not depend on one another. > Have you compared the two parsing systems, side by side, on all inputs, or > anything like that? We include many of the WebOnt tests in our distribution as unit tests. Those tests are run via each of the interfaces described above, so exercies both parsers. Eventually the same will be true for the new OWL WG tests. Until that time, a smaller number of tests using the new syntax features are running through both interfaces. -- Mike Smith Clark & Parsia
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:44:10 UTC