Fwd: fact checking for semantic reasoners

Thanks Leo


It's been some time since University and as far as I remember, an axiom is
> by definition true.
>

haha. right. thats the point I am trying to make
if axioms are not factchecked, then they are just plain statements
that would explain why web reasoners have limited reliability
(read: rubbish in rubbish out, as someone told me at the presentation)



>
> The reasoner would have to study Philosophy to verify them.
>

ha ha, no- the reasoner (or the ontology) would need to check its facts via
a simple routine  have a built before it spews its outcome


p





> Leo Sauermann, Dr.
> CEO and Founder
>
> mail: <leo.sauermann@gnowsis.com>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>
> 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
>
>
>
>