W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2011

Re: fact checking for semantic reasoners

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:24:28 +0200
Message-Id: <4E69C702-240C-4D95-BD5A-7C6290EC8018@gnowsis.com>
Cc: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
To: "paoladimaio10@googlemail.com" <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>
It's been some time since University and as far as I remember, an axiom is by definition true. 

The reasoner would have to study Philosophy to verify them. 

Leo Sauermann, Dr.
CEO and Founder

mail: leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com
mobile: +43 6991 gnowsis           
http://www.gnowsis.com

helping people remember,

so join our newsletter
http://www.gnowsis.com/about/content/newsletter

Am 28.08.2011 um 13:02 schrieb Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>:

> Good morning good peoples
> 
> I am following up on a few ideas shared earlier this year at the first workshop for linked data provenance.
> 
> http://wiki.esi.ac.uk/Workshop:_Understanding_Provenance_and_Linked_Open_Data
> 
> hope that perhaps someone on this list (or the related WG list to which I am not subscribed, if someone could xpost there) could help to answer the question below
> 
> Had a few conversations in recent years, where it was suggested that semantic reasoners
> do not support fact checking, ie, that axioms are not verified as being true, rather
> assumed to be true.
> 
> Is this true? (pardon the pun)
> 
> 
> The question is, does any of the popular semantic reasoners 
> have built in fact checking routines?
> 
> I can of course answer this question by checking one by one, trying to save myself a bit of work
> by asking the list
> 
> Thanks in advance for sharing any knowledge you may have o this topic
> (answered will be referenced and acknowledged in any write up that may follow)
> 
> thank you!
> 
> PDM 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 07:24:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:25 UTC