- From: Jens Lehmann <lehmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:15:17 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hello, Olivier Rossel wrote: > I am currently having a look at new features available in OWL2 (thanks > for property chains :). > But I am quite frustrated to see that only OWLAPI handles OWL2 at the moment. > No short-term plan for Jena to support it. > No idea if Swoop or Protege3-OWL will ever be upgraded to support it. OWL 2 has many interesting features and I'd also like to see as much tool support for it as possible. However, currently the specification has the status of a working draft, i.e. it is still half a year(?) away from an official W3C recommendation. That said there is already tool support. The OWL API is always quite close to the current OWL 2 working draft and Protege 4 is based on the OWL API. Hence, it also supports OWL 2. Some reasoners already have support for OWL 2 including FaCT++ and Pellet. The OWL 2 profiles attracted some interest: CEL is a reasoner for the EL profile, Owlgres and QuOnto support the OWL 2 Lite profile. Oracle 11g has support for the OWL 2 R profile and they have shown that they can reason over millions of triples in the LUBM benchmark. I guess that Virtuoso, which is more established in the Semantic Web community, also has a strong interest to support the R profile in the future. > OWLAPI does not manage semantic web at the statement level. > Jena was one of the few libraries to be both statement-based and concept-based. > Basically, i would say that Jena was the only API to glue the RDF > world and the OWL world together. > And because of that, it had been adopted by developpers as a > "one-size-fits-all" library. > And by RDF database vendors as their API for their RDF storage system. > > This makes me wonder: > What will happen in the next future? > Will we see a schism between RDF tools, and OWL tools? > Virtuoso vs OwlGres? > > I think it is good that the Semantic Web has always keeped that > internal competition between statements > and boxes. But if tools support is splitted, then what? Two > communities? Mass storage vs inference? A crucial > tools choice to make in any IT project? Then we are back in the vendor > lock-in nightmare. > > Well, this is quite a rough reflexion. > Please comment. > > > -- Dipl. Inf. Jens Lehmann Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Homepage: http://www.jens-lehmann.org GPG Key: http://jens-lehmann.org/jens_lehmann.asc
Received on Friday, 9 January 2009 14:16:09 UTC