- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:42:03 +0100
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
>>>>> "CO" == Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org> writes: >> Part of the problem with DL reasoners and their scalability is, >> indeed, their relative immaturity. But, part of the problem is >> because that is just the way that universe is built. Ain't much >> that can be done about this. CO> I disagree and my point is that the universe you speak of is CO> framed by a specific reasoning algorithm. No, it isn't. Part of the issues with scalability is that the complexity of solving OWL is fairly high -- it's just a hard problem. This is independent from the algorithm being used to solve it. It's a guarentee of worst case time performance for any algorithm, including those not developed. Again, this is not necessarily a problem. Almost all programming languages have unbounded worst case complexity -- for a arbitary java program you can never guarentee that it will complete. >> Memory is not cheap if the requirements scale non-polynomially. >> Besides, what is the point of suggesting that large terminologies >> are not a problem? Why not try it, and report the results? CO> I plan to. I simply don't think the assumption that Tableau CO> Calculus represents the known limitations of DL reasoning is a CO> very useful one. I didn't say this. I am sure someone will come up with algorithms which run quicker than at present. But there are fundamental limitations there also. My current experience systems which reason over OWL significantly faster tend to not be doing the same thing, but something simpler. Phil
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 14:16:40 UTC