Re: OWL Full reasoning

On 8/18/05, Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:

It's good to see a practical problem as a use case. Ok, IANAL, so I
have more questions than answers here -

> 1.      Given the fact that this is clearly an implementation of OWL Full,
> can any OWL reasoner handle this at present? 

First question - have you determined the inferences you are looking
for are actually available through OWL Full semantics? My guess is
that whether or not this is the case then the reasoning is likely
possible with existing tools using a subset of OWL Full + rules  (e.g.
using  cwm, Euler or Pychinko).

Next questions - are you tied to this representation? Cannot the same
information be refactored to be OWL DL?

For example, you have "2" 150/300#RF Flanged Connection" as subClassOf
"ClassOfDirectConnection", yet an instance of "Valid Connection per
ANSI B16.5". Might it not be reasonable to make it a subClass of the
latter too?

> 2.      If not yet, may we realistically expect such a capability to be
> available by the year 2010? 

I'll let a logician answer that. My guess is it's either "yes, now" or
"never" depending on whether sound & complete reasoning is possible
for the bits of OWL Full used.
My own deadlines tend to be closer than 2010 ;-)

> 3.      And if not, why is there OWL Full? 

My personal take is that RDF has proven its utility as a
representation language for the Web irrespective of the availability
of general-purpose reasoners. Going back to my earlier question - why
have you chosen this representation?

Looking at RDF/S through OWL spectacles provides a formal basis which
can help answer questions like whether or not there will be a solution
to a problem by 2010.  But in the scenario you present it's not hard
to imagine an engine with hard-wired flange logic working on the data.

One final question - do you happen to have this available as RDF/XML
or other serialization?

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 15:06:33 UTC