W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: accuracy check on OWL-DL reasoners

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:01:45 -0500
Message-ID: <473308B9.3020405@gmail.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Michael Kifer wrote:
>  My argument was that this should not stop us from including
> things that are a bit challenging and I gave OWL as an example.

Agreed.


-Chris

> 
> 
> 	--michael  
> 
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2007, at 9:34 PM, Michael Kifer wrote:
>>
>>> It may be now, but it was not so a year ago. My info was outdated.   
>>> I see
>>> that Racer has announced an upcoming complete version, and Pellet has
>>> become complete some 6 months ago.
>> This is not true. Pellet was complete almost in 1.3 beta, so sept  
>> 2005. FaCT++ became complete for OWL DL some months after that. Racer  
>> has had other design priorities.
>>
>> Pellet and Racer over a year ago (before OWLED 2006 in Nov 2006) both  
>> became complete SROIQ reasoners (i.e., OWL 1.1).
>>
>>> But my point is still valid.
>> Well, sorta. I wish it was made with accurate facts :)
>>
>>> It took
>>> quite a few years
>> OWL went rec in Feb 2004. So, let's see, 10 months to 2005, and 9  
>> months to sept, so 19 months, which is 1 year and 7 months.
>>
>> This is "quite a few" years? :)
>>
>> Also, there were SHOQ and SHOQ reasoners before (FaCT, DLP).
>>
>> Oh, MSPASS was complete and a decision procedure long before, I'm  
>> prettysure. And Hoolet was complete, but I've not tracked down  
>> exactly when. I wouldn't call these serious production  
>> implementations though.
>>
>>> to achieve a complete implementation after the official
>>> release of OWL.  Another important point is that without the OWL
>>> specification there would probably be little incentive to go all  
>>> the way
>>> and implement those less critical aspects of OWL.
>> Hard to say. The main block was the lack of a goal directed decision  
>> procedure for SHOIQ, which really was quite radically different that  
>> the EXPTIME logics, due to the loss of the tree like model property.  
>> Uli and Ian worked on it for 5 years or so. We implemented it shortly  
>> after they came up with one.
>>
>> However, we knew how to implement qualified cardinality restrictions,  
>> and even had user requests, but didn't until we had OWL 1.1 specs we  
>> were trying to validate. So, I do agree that it can help a lot. If  
>> you have known procedures, it's even a bit of a no-brainer.
>>
>> No need to exaggerate to make your point.
>>
>>> So, if we set the bar too low for RIF then there will be no  
>>> incentive to
>>> work on complete implementations of important features (like equality)
>>> either.
>> On the other hand, people haven't really taken up the guantlet of a  
>> complete OWL Full reasoner. So some "reasonableness" judgement is  
>> required.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 13:02:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:43 GMT