- From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:28:27 -0400
- To: "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> KV> 1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability > KV> here is being achieved here by leveraging relational database > KV> technology (which is acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping > KV> OWL instance reasoning operations to appropriate SQL queries on > KV> the underlying data store. > > I may be wrong here, but as far as I know the expressivity of OWL-DL, > for example, is too different from that of RDBMS for this to work > completely. I am not enough of an expert to know if this sort of > mapping is possible at all or whether it just cannot be done > efficiently. [VK] You may have a point Phil! It is definitely possible as various approaches have explored mapping various DL constructs to views involving relational algebra operations. See section 5 in http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/~kashyap/publications/MIKS00-DAPD.pdf However, this was done primarily for CLASSIC and other DLs which were possibly less expressive than OWL-DL and FACT. I was wondering if the current implementations of DL reasoners such as Pellet, Racer, etc. adopt this strategy. > Having said that there is a similar approach, which uses RDBMS. For > example, the instance store (http://instancestore.man.ac.uk) which I > was briefly involved with (before the backend got to hard for my poor > brain!), uses a metaschema backend. Queries are not made by mapping to > SQL, but using SQL and reasoner queries together. [VK] Maybe the increased expressivity of OWL-DL leads to the above design choice of SQL + reasoning. > KV> 2. TBox reasoning scalability is a challenge, especially at the > KV> scale of 100s of > KV> thousands of classes found in medical ontologies. Would love to > KV> hear >From DL experts on this issue. > > Again, as far as I understand, the complexity of T-Box and A-Box > reasoning for logics such as that underlying OWL-DL are not that > different (i.e. they are both terrible!), so the issues are much the > same. > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~dturi/papers/instancestore2.pdf [VK] Thanks for this. Will look this up. Cheers, ---Vipul
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 18:28:50 UTC