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