- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:12:24 +0100
- To: Somaya Aboulwafa <somaya_ahmad@yahoo.com>
- CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Somaya Aboulwafa wrote: > I want to use OWL for representing security polices, more specifically > authorization and access control polices. So I have searching for OWL > inference engine that can reason over those polices. And I have found a > lot of owl reasoners: > > 1. Java Theorem Prover (JTP) > 2. Pellet > 3. Fact > 4. F-OWL > 5. Jena 2 > 6. RACER > 7. SweetRules > > Have you any idea which is the most appropriate one for me??? anyone > have any recommendations???? A key question for you to consider is whether your reasoning falls within OWL/DL, requires OWL/full or you may also want to do some reasoning outside of OWL. If you are specifically using OWL/DL and require guarantees of complete reasoning then use a DL reasoner - one of Pellet, Fact, or Racer. They have some differences, for example, Racer has more support for ABox reasoning than Fact which may be relevant for you. If you want to express some of your problem outside of OWL then rule languages can be quite well suited to access control policies and so SweetRules, the Jena2 rules engine and the XSB/Flora machinery behind F-OWL may be appropriate. If you may need something closer to full first order theorem proving then JTP is the closest on that list. By the way, you can access Racer, Pellet and Fact through Jena2 (as well as using the builtin rule-based reasoner). So one approach might be to build a test example and then compare the performance and coverage of the reasoners empirically. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 08:12:39 UTC