Re: fact checking for semantic reasoners

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 
> 
> 
>