- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:34:42 -0500
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Cc: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>, Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, Igor Mozetic <igor.mozetic@ijs.si>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, bonatti@na.infn.it, edbark@nist.gov
On Feb 12, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Dieter Fensel wrote: > At 10:18 12.02.2006 +0100, Igor Mozetic wrote: > >> So, according to the above, is my understanding correct that Pellet >> fully supports OWL-DL? >> Or is it just a demo, that it *could* be implemented? >> >> Regards, >> Igor > > Indeed more specifically, was it an OWL-DL or an OWL-Lite reasoner. > That is, did it deal with nominals? > > (hopping this is not out of scope) IIRC, we only claimed to be a complete OWL-Lite reasoner at CR. That was what we were specifically aiming for (namely to show that OWL Lite was implementable). I *believe* that at the time we had rather more support (N and probably O, but I'm not 100% sure anymore of the timeline; O may have come the following summer). All my attempts to update the record got lost :) (Part of this was an artifact of the confromance classes defined in the test suite.) Nowadays, of course, Pellet is a complete OWL DL consistency checker (since Oct) and had support for nominals in various combinations long before that. For more on the OWL CR period see: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls esp. the Exit Criteria: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls#exit As you can see, some of the sorting was a bit for appearances. (I.e., FaCT and Racer certainly were complete OWL Lite consistency checkers). And Pellet could have counted as a useful OWL Full reasoner, maybe, as we did some automated coercion of OWL Full ontologies into a DL form. (Indeed, we pass 80% of the full entailment tests, at that time, see <http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out>). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 12 February 2006 16:35:17 UTC