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

Re: Reasoner accuracy

From: Ghalem Ouadjed (EOWEO) <gouadjed@eoweo.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:05:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE9F9DF.8000101@eoweo.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Alan, Adam,
thank you very much. That help a lot. And i think i have some good tracks.

many thanks to each one who have sended me answers and resources.

Cheers
Ghalem

Le 26/06/2012 18:38, Alan Ruttenberg a écrit :
> 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 <mailto: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 18:05:50 GMT

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