Am 06.01.2009 um 01:59 schrieb Holger Knublauch: >> - what are your plans for support of OWL2? > > We need to distinguish between editing and inferencing support for > OWL 2. > > Strictly speaking we already support editing OWL 2 ontologies - just > add the properties such as owl:key and owl:propertyChain (or import > a model that defines them) and use the generic form editors to use > them.
well, of course > We will likely make this more convenient in the near future, > especially to provide convenient editors for things that really > should have better rendering (like property chains). that's good to hear! > Inferencing of OWL 2 RL is supported using SPIN - see today's blog > entry: > > OWL 2 RL in SPARQL using SPIN even better :-) indeed, a nice way to evolve things > The same mechanism could be applied to cover additional segments of > OWL 2 (or any other language that can be expressed using SPIN/ > SPARQL) if someone needs them. > > Other options include using Pellet 2 if someone wants to contribute > a plug-in for that (see other discussion on this list). i saw that, thanks. still... this seems to be a business thing and i certainly don't expect you to make all your rationales public. however, TBC isn't exactly a cheap product and the nice intergration of OWL support including inference and pellets conflict resolution facilities is one of the central selling points. while a third party plugin is certainly a much better solution than no integration at all it still hurts a bit that after shelling out so much money i still have to relay on third party support for certain features. well, that's just how i feel about it and i don't question that you have some good reasons for your decision as well. could you provide some hints and information on how to write such a plugin in a seperate post? i don't think i can do it but maybe it isn't that hard? or maybe it just helps the process get started :-) >> - what are your plans for support of RIF? > > We are monitoring what is happening with RIF and may include it in > future versions, but very unlikely for 3.0. I am also not sure how > such a RIF support would look like: what would you expect it to do? sorry, i'm not sure about that either. i'm just aware that work on SWRL has somehow ceased and RIF is the likely successor. "alarmed" by the way you handled OWL2 (or better: the way i interpreted it) i wanted to know about RIF. >> >> - do you plan to integrate virtuoso like allegro, sesame etc? > > As far as I know this is already done: Virtuoso has a Sesame > interface and can thus be used as a Sesame remote repository. ah, that's good. i had overlooked that >> - will you add further support for quads (e.g. in the triple view)? > > The TBC support for named graphs is such that you will have a > different base URI for each named graph. Since the Triples View can > be filtered by base URIs you can essentially see each named graph > individually. yep, but it would be nice to see at a glance if triples occur in more than one graph(and in which ones specifically) - or in general: having more shortcuts to graphs from the interface. sorry for the late response, thanks for your time! ciao thomas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to topbraid-composer-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-composer-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
