>>>>> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I may be wrong here, but as far as I know the expressivity of >> OWL-DL, for example, is too different from that of RDBMS for this >> to work completely. KV> However, this was done primarily for CLASSIC and other DLs which KV> were possibly less expressive than OWL-DL and FACT. Yeah, it's straight forward enough if you just have, for example, subsumption and existentials. KV> I was wondering if the current implementations of DL reasoners KV> such as Pellet, Racer, etc. adopt this strategy. Not as far as I know. >> Having said that there is a similar approach, which uses >> RDBMS. For example, the instance store >> (http://instancestore.man.ac.uk) KV> [VK] Maybe the increased expressivity of OWL-DL leads to the KV> above design choice of SQL + reasoning. Yes. Why try to get a RDBMS to do DL reasoning, when a tableaux reasoner can do it for you? Phil