W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Reasoning

From: Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetzsch@cs.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:24:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4E23FBE6.4040607@cs.ox.ac.uk>
To: Cristiano Longo <longo@dmi.unict.it>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org
On 18/07/11 08:27, Cristiano Longo wrote:
> Morning all,
> in the far future I planned to implement a description logic reasoner.
> May you give me some hints or pointers about the pratical (I yet know
> the algorithm) for implementing such a reasoner?

Dear Christian,

description logics come in various flavours to match different 
application areas. These different logics also match different profiles 
of OWL: OWL EL, OWL QL, OWL RL, and OWL DL (there is also OWL Full but 
its semantics is not description logics based though both are compatible 
to some extent).

EL, QL, RL are more lightweight for better scalability (for example OWL 
RL has been implemented in distributed settings with billions of 
assertions; and EL has been used to classify ontologies with hundreds of 
thousands of classes in a few seconds; QL is meant for ontology-based 
data access to large databases). OWL DL provides the full modelling 
support of all DL features that OWL has. Lightweight languages are 
generally easier to implement but any efficient implementation will need 
a lot of engineering. Just implementing an algorithm from a research 
paper will not lead to good results.

So before you can start, you really need to decide which description 
logic/OWL profile you want to support. This is closely related to 
another important questions: why do you want to implement your own tool 
instead of just using an existing one?

Regards

Markus

-- 
Dr. Markus Krötzsch
Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford
Room 306, Parks Road, OX1 3QD Oxford, United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529               http://korrekt.org/
Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 09:25:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:29 UTC