W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Question on DL negation

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:40:48 +0000
Message-Id: <D55A5AD3-26E7-4E64-AAAE-1AD2D4B05792@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>

On 5 Mar 2007, at 15:32, Matt Williams wrote:

> Sorry, as a follow-up I think I can handle my requirements with the  
> disjoint properties of OWL 1.1. On a practical note, which tools  
> currently support owl 1.1 modelling ?

There's a too be updated list on:

"Protege 4.0 alpha" and TopBraid Composer. There's a version of swoop  
that browses them.

(It's best to post to, or at least cc, public-owl-dev for OWL 1.1  

> And which reasoners? I think FaCT++ does (but not via DIG), and  
> Pellet 1.4, but again I'm not clear on DIG support.

The problem is that the DIG "1.0" concept language doesn't support  
OWL 1.1. DIG 2.0 uses the xml syntax for OWL 1.1, so it's fine.  
Protege, Swoop, and TopBraid all use a "direct" connection to the  
reasoner (including, in protege's case, FaCT++). If you are writing  
your own tool, you might check out how the OWL API wraps the various  
reasoners. Performance is generally better than DIG (much better for  
Java based reasoners like Pellet and KAON2).

> Any other pointers would be welcome

Hope this helps.

Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 15:40:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:00 UTC