W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2020

RE: State of OWL reasoners

From: William Van Woensel <William.Van.Woensel@Dal.Ca>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 15:39:32 +0000
To: Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <YTXPR0101MB1022CAA7E434AE501C0A77D9D4920@YTXPR0101MB1022.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Hi Mikael,

Just wondering, what errors are you getting in particular for each reasoner? I've successfully used several of the listed ones. (Also note that EYE is not an OWL reasoner, although it could be used with an OWL2 RL ruleset to fulfill that role to an extent.)


W

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Pesonen <mikael.pesonen@lingsoft.fi> 
Sent: June-25-20 6:59 AM
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: State of OWL reasoners

CAUTION: The Sender of this email is not from within Dalhousie.

I thought to do some entailment checking in OWL in way that no programming or install scripting is not be required.
So far have tested so far HermiT, Pellet, Openllet, Fact++, EYE and Robot. None of them work.
Robot doesn't have the entailment function, others are broken. Either knowledge how to tweak Linux installation scripts to solve conflicts is required or they just crash or function erroneously.
Some of the projects are alive, that is, forum and GitHub posts got first answered, but eventually got silence before problems got solved.

I thing W3C is doing awesome job making the specifications, but they are useless without the tools that implement them.

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2020 15:39:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:04 UTC