W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Reasoner accuracy

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:38:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFKQJ8msYhKZqKA6Hs=0q0k9pU73How8t5LsVedjMWttNMfmpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: gouadjed@eoweo.com
Cc: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
If you are using OWL-DL there are guarantees about completeness of results,
but the guarantees about performance are not very comforting. In the case
you are using OWL-DL I suggest you load the ontology up into protege 4.2
and try all the full DL reasoners - Fact++, Pellet, Hermit. If your
ontology falls into one of the profiles described (in
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/) then there are other reasoners that
reason over these profiles, which may be faster.  See
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations

If you are working in OWL, you can ask questions at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/

There are sometimes minor rewrites you can do to improve reasoner
performance without changing the intended meaning of your ontology. The
best way to encourage people to comment on them is to include a pointer to
a specific ontology that they can download and try.

If you are not using OWL-DL you should not expect any reasoner to give you
complete results, and this might explain why you get different answers from
different reasoners.

hth,
Alan

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Ghalem Ouadjed (EOWEO)
<gouadjed@eoweo.com>wrote:

> Le 22/06/2012 17:40, adasal a écrit :
>
>  Well it's a very complex subject isn't it.
>> I have never done reasoner optimization but e.g. Allegro claim their
>> reasoner is faster over a certain data set than some other X. And I think
>> theirs and others have reasoners which are plug in. So the first step is
>> understanding the significance of the underlying data store.
>> Then there is the logic the reasoner supports. Some are opptimised for
>> different branches. But may do less well than X with some other logic set.
>> I think choice of logic comes before choice of reasoner though?
>> So now we have the store, the logic, the reasoner and add in the
>> implementation language and the query language.
>> If it is a complex store (Open RDF?) we may also be looking at its
>> component modules and their implementation.
>> Don't forget versions.
>> Now what do you want to know?
>> (not just to be clear that I would be able to answer. But then think
>> about it very few people would given above. )
>>
>> Adam
>>
> Hi Adam,
>
> yes the first thought when the users talk about their prob using reasoner
> on their data concerns the data. Actually they all use Pellet and i can add
> that their data is not so clean because they are produced from other semi
> structured data (xml like). As for today the users have a conservative
> process which consists on preserving their initial format and produce some
> rdf/xml files in a way to enhance the conclusion. But these enhancements
> are not stable. For example the conclusions they get are " not always
> equivalent". if we consider that the data is 80% responsible what would the
> format the most interesting ? My thought is that turtle like is interesting
> as for me the reasoners we use to meet are Prolog based (thought?) and then
> N3 + rules could provide better results...?..
>
> Ghalem
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 16:39:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:49 GMT