- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:40:48 +0000
- To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
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: http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ "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 discussions.) > 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. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 15:40:22 UTC