40 likes | 166 Views
This report by Yan Tang discusses the critical role of reasoners in OWL ontology development, emphasizing their necessity for making inferences about classes and individuals. It reviews various OWL DL reasoners like RACER, FaCT, and Pellet, and explores the advantages and disadvantages of different reasoning methodologies, including model-theoretic approaches and ORM-based design. The analysis highlights the challenges posed by exhaustive node exploration and the potential for error in deduction methods, ultimately showcasing the significance of reliable reasoning in ontology construction.
E N D
Commitment and Reasoner Reporter: Yan Tang Date: 7 July 2006 At: VUB STAR lab
Ontology reasoner • OWL DL reasoner • DL reasoner • RACER • FaCT • FaCT++ • Pellet • DIG reasoner via HTTP • Why does OWL need a reasoner? • To enable inferences to be made about classes and individuals in an ontology • Other tools (RDF, KIF, etc)
Why do we need a reasoner? • DOGMA approach is model theoretic approach • ORM is our current ontology design tool – lexon + commitment • ER diagram • 2 ways of “reasoning”: • Ground to the normal DL • Mapping to available models in commitment
Simple analysis • For the fist possibility • Advantage: reuse available tools • Disadvantage: • Induction/deduction is hidden • Error proven is not guaranteed • For the second possibility • Advantage • Users can get enough information during mapping • Disadvantage • Node exhaustively explored, thus time consuming • Difficulty • Time consuming problem • Different models can represent similar concept