On 11/08/14 09:20, Stefan Henke wrote:
Hi, some days back I came across an issue that reasoning with the owl reasoner did not work as I supposed to work. Thanks to Dave I figured out that my ontology was using restrictions supported only by owl2. My current assumption is cover these parts with jena rules.This works fine till now.
Good.
And I want to replace them with owl2 semantics once supported by owl2. Is it a fair assumption so that the expressiveness of jena rules is comparable to owl2 feature set?
No. Using rules you can express the OWL RL profile of OWL 2 but can't do a complete implementation of the full OWL 2 semantics. However, that is just as true of OWL 1. The builtin jena OWL rule sets do not provide a complete implementation of OWL 1, OWL 2 doesn't make it worse.
In either case if you need a complete inference solution for the whole of OWL you'll need a DL reasoner like Pellet.
Is there any disadvantage of using jena rules besides missing portability to other engines?
Portability is the primary issue. Performance can be an issue but if it is good enough for your case then that's fine.
Is there any plan on when jena will suport owl2?
There are no concrete plans that I'm aware of. Dave
