- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:48:32 +0100
- To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
- Cc: "Zhu Bin" <zhubin@cai.pku.edu.cn>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On September 4, Peter Crowther writes: > > > From: Zhu Bin [mailto:zhubin@cai.pku.edu.cn] > > Rule-based reasoner and tableaux-based reasoner, which is the better > > for the reasoning in ontology? > > They can do somewhat different things; you may even want to combine > them. If you are looking at building a reasoner for OWL-DL, a > tableau-based reasoner would probably give the best combination of > functionality and performance. If you are restricted to a rule-based > reasoner, OWL-Lite is designed to provide a good framework that is > (supposedly) implementable using rules. I would be interested to know the basis on which you make this last statement - pointers to relevant literature would be particularly welcome. Ian > > Take a look at FaCT and Racer (tableaux-based reasoners), Euler > (rule-based reasoner) and TRIPLE (rule-based that calls out to > tableaux-based where necessary). Of these, I think TRIPLE is > architecturally the most interesting. Apologies to the folks whose work > I have missed out. There are more links in the Reasoners section of > [1]. > > > Should we divided reasoning and query > > into two part in ontology? > > I'll leave that to others :-). > > - Peter > > [1] http://www.w3c.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls > -- > Peter Crowther, Director, Melandra Limited
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 20:33:49 UTC