Re: accuracy check on OWL-DL reasoners

Chris Welty wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

So I've no idea of the detailed context for this discussion but it seems 
to me there is quite a lot of difference between a standard where you 
are expecting people to implement or extend reasoners and one where one 
of the requirements is "no new implementation, just translation".

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

>>
>>
>>     --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 My info was outdated.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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 14:06:04 UTC