- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:01:32 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: >* Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> [2004-03-27 22:20-0500] > > >>Hi folks, >> >>So it seems there are plenty of systems capable of handling lots of RDF. Are >>there any that handle OWL (in some version or other) at that scale? >> >> > >I guess it depends what you mean by 'handle'. > >OWL descriptions of RDF vocabularies (such as FOAF) license inferences, >ie. justify you (or your software) concluding new things from a >dataset. Tools like Foafbot (http://usefulinc.com/foaf/foafbot) which >are built on top of generic RDF machinery (in this case Redland) can do >useful things (justified by OWL) without being complete OWL reasoners. >For eg. FOAFBot's Web crawler does a bit of 'identity reasoning' based >on knowing that some but not all FOAF/RDF properties are >owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, ie. uniquely identifying. > >So the good news is that OWL support can be added incrementally. You >might decide just to support an understanding of inverse properties, >eg. making a system understand that foaf:depicts and foaf:depiction say that >same thing as each other, just expressed inversely. > > > Which leads in an interesting direction. If IFPs are particularly important in your system, you may want to optimise around them without worrying about efficiencies elsewhere. There's a Horrocks paper [1] on optimising DL subsumption. Perhaps we could do with exploring/compiling a list of some comparable (best practices?) possibilities on other optimisations - identity resolution, disjoint sets etc. >The bad news is that I don't have any handy references to systems that >do this sort of thing... > > > Nope, me neither. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.dbnet.ece.ntua.gr/~dwq/p19.pdf -- ---- Raw http://dannyayers.com
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2004 12:01:19 UTC