This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Semantic reasoner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have been reading the Internet Business Logic Web page and it seems that is an application that uses description logic for Bussiness Inteligence. As I see it, the system does use semantic reasoning, but it is not itself a semantic reasoner (probably the semantic reasoner is part of the system, but the system is not a reasoning engine). This article is about semantic reasoners, not applications that use them. IMHO it would be better to create another article or list of systems that use semantic reasoning. I would like to know what other editors think about it, so feel free to refute me :-) Vastag (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Including JENA as a "semantic reasoner" is very questionable---its documentation lists no less than seven different alternative plugins to provide some kind of inferencing support, but none of them are comparable to the "sound and complete" reasoners included in the remainder of this list. List "yes" on support for entailment testing or consistency checking is thus extremely dubious.
Frankly, the feature table on this page seems completely out of place (and the prior feature-by-feature breakdown of SWRL was particularly ridiculous). Perhaps a separate page comparing OWL or SWRL reasoners would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.151.47 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a poor quality article, starting with the definition of the term. It seems to think this is more general than inference, but it is not. And the article shows a lack of understanding for the basic concepts in semantics and reasoning. Needs a rewrite. The table is not encyclopedic and includes spam. Needs a rewrite. By the way, has anyone here heard of "references".... ? History2007 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Could anyone please transpose the "Reasoner comparison"-table? It's simply unreadable for normal users. Not everyone has a 3000-pixel-width resolution or more and a wall filling screen to be able to read a 15-column table with text content! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.76.82.62 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
As part of cleanup to save this article, I'm deleting non-notable entries in the lists. However, this table as noted above needs both a transposition and a culling of non-notable entries. So I'm transferring it to the talk page, until we can get around to it. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
BaseVISor | Bossam | Cyc | Hoolet | Pellet | KAON2 | RacerPro | Jena | FaCT | FaCT++ | SweetRules | OWLIM | OntoBroker | HermiT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OWL-DL Entailment | No | Unknown | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No complete reasoner included with standard distribution | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Supported expressivity for reasoning | R-entailment, OWL 2 RL | Unknown | High-order | Unknown | SROIQ(D) | SHIQ(D) | SRIQ(D-) | varies by reasoner (incomplete for nontrivial description logics) | SHIQ | SROIQ(D) | Unknown | R-entailment, OWL 2 RL | OWL: SHIQ(D) (for OntoBroker 6.1: Subset of OWL-RL); F-logic: normal logic, wellfounded semantics | SHOIQ+ |
Reasoning algorithm | Rule-based, Rete | Rule-based | First-order with high-order extensions | First-order prover | Tableau | Resolution & Datalog | Tableau | Rule-based | Tableau | Tableau | Rule-based | Rule-based | OWL: Resolution & Datalog; F-logic: Rule-based (BottomUp, MagicSet, Dynamic-Filtering, QSQ) | Hypertableau |
Consistency checking | Yes | Unknown | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Incomplete for OWL DL | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
DIG Support | No | No | No | No | Deprecated | Deprecated | Deprecated | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
Rule Support | Yes (Own rule format) | Yes (SWRL & own rule format) | Yes (Own rule format) | Yes (SWRL) | Yes (SWRL—DL Safe Rules) | Yes (SWRL—DL Safe Rules) | Yes (SWRL—not fully supported) & own rule format | Yes (Own rule format) | No | No | Yes (SWRL, RuleML, Jess) | Yes (Own format) | Yes (SWRL, RIF, F-logic, ObjectLogic) | Yes (SWRL—DL Safe Rules) |
Version | 2.0 | 0.9b45 | Unknown | Unknown | 2.0.2 | 2008-06-29 | 2.0 preview | 2.5.4 | Unknown | 1.6.0 | 2.1 | 2.x/3.x | 6.1 | 1.3.6 |
Licensing | Free to use / closed-source | Free to use / closed-source | Free to use / closed-source (academic and research only) & Non-Free / closed-source | Free / open-source | Free / open-source & Non-Free/ closed-source | Free to use / closed-source | Non-Free/ closed-source | Free / open-source | Free / open-source | Free / open-source | Free / open-source | Non-Free/ closed-source | Non-Free/ closed-source | Free / open-source |