> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There are two different things in the technologies you mentioned;
>> relational to X mapping tools, and metaschema approaches. They
>> are quite different. For the instance store, the relational
>> database is really an implement
> "CO" == Chimezie Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Part of the problem with DL reasoners and their scalability is,
>> indeed, their relative immaturity. But, part of the problem is
>> because that is just the way that universe is built. Ain't much
>> that can be done about this.
> I disagree and my point is that the universe you speak of is framed by a
> specific reasoning algorithm.
[VK] I believe this is not true. It's been a while since I took courses in
Theoretical CS, but complexity classes are not based on a given technology. In
general these complexity classes
Well, as I am speaking at the limit of my knowledge I cannot be sure
about this, but I strongly suspect that what you say is wrong.
Any computational system can only be guaranteed to work well in all
circumstances if it is of very low expressivity. If a system
implements expressivity equivalen
> The hypothesis is only going to be true IF the mapping is scalable.
> Otherwise, it doesn't work.
[VK] This is a valid point! The mapping has to be scalable. In the RDBMS
context, what this means is that this should be mappable into a specialized
schema so that the following "scalability featu
> Chris is right, but the IS itself has no view on the matter. it does,
> I believe, play some tricks inside making instances classes to do the
> reasoning. What the user sees are instances. When we use the IS to
> classify proteins, we have a class "p53" and we translate all the
> genes in a gen
> CO> Once again: pure production/rule-oriented systems *are* built to
> CO> scale well in *all* circumstances (this is the primary advantage
> CO> they have over DL reasoners - i.e., reasoners tuned specifically
> CO> to DL semantics). This distinction is critical: not every
> CO> re
> "CO" == Chimezie Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ABox is more complex than TBox, although I believe the difference
>> is not that profound (ie they are both really complex). For a DL
>> as expressive as that which OWL is based on, the complexities are
>> always really bad. In
> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not at doing DL reasoning. Relational databases do relational
>> stuff well. For everything else, they are as likely to be rubbish
>> as fast.
KV> [VK] Agreed! But the hypothesis is that mapping into a proven
KV> scalable tech
Thanks, Phil.This all makes perfect sense.Please see below for a brief clarification.Cheers,BillOn Sep 15, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: "WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: WB> CLASSes represent UNIVERSALs or TYPEs. The TBox is the set of WB> CLASSes and the ASSERTIONs asso
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Phillip Lord wrote:
"WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WB> CLASSes represent UNIVERSALs or TYPEs. The TBox is the set of
WB> CLASSes and the ASSERTIONs associated with CLASSes.
WB> INSTANCEs represent EXISTENTIALs or INDIVIDUALs instantiating a
> "WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WB> CLASSes represent UNIVERSALs or TYPEs. The TBox is the set of
WB> CLASSes and the ASSERTIONs associated with CLASSes.
WB> INSTANCEs represent EXISTENTIALs or INDIVIDUALs instantiating a
WB> CLASS in the real world. The ABox i
> Not at doing DL reasoning. Relational databases do relational stuff
> well. For everything else, they are as likely to be rubbish as fast.
[VK] Agreed! But the hypothesis is that mapping into a proven scalable
technology such as an RDBMS, even if as a component helps build a scalable
DL reaso
> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes. Why try to get a RDBMS to do DL reasoning, when a tableaux
>> reasoner can do it for you?
KV> [VK] Scalability and Performance :)
Not at doing DL reasoning. Relational databases do relational stuff
well. For everything else,
> Yes. Why try to get a RDBMS to do DL reasoning, when a tableaux
> reasoner can do it for you?
[VK] Scalability and Performance :)
Hi All,Just as a clarification for the less informed - myself included - we're discussing the subtle and extremely difficult aspects of creating knowledge maps/annotation repositories/KBs/KR repositories (what have you) ultimately capable of supporting reasoning (simple classification through more
> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KV> Obviously, if mapping into instances gives better performance
KV> for a given set of inferences, that might be the basis of
KV> choosing the instance-of relationship. Towards this end I have
KV> the following questions for Phil
> "cm" == chris mungall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
cm> On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> This paper for example, managed to get the Gene Ontology and, I
>> think, all of GOA into a DL form and reason over it in a, er,
>> reasonable amount of time. S
cm> Instance
> "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>
Chris is right, but the IS itself has no view on the matter. it does,
I believe, play some tricks inside making instances classes to do the
reasoning. What the user sees are instances. When we use the IS to
classify proteins, we have a class "p53" and we translate all the
genes in a genome in
> With InstanceStore, the genes and gene products are treated as owl
> individuals - belonging to the ABox. However, the ontologically
> correct representation recognises that p53 is the name of a universal
> that is instantiated in trillions of cells, and not the name of an
> individual region o
All
I forwarded the email to Ian Horrocks, he of reasoner fame, and his
answer is below.
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dmitry Tsarkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Ian Horrocks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance issues with OWL Reasoners (Was RE: Playing
with
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
This paper for example, managed to get the Gene Ontology and, I think,
all of GOA into a DL form and reason over it in a, er, reasonable
amount of time. So scalability to 10's of thousands of T-box and 100's
of thousands of A-Box's is possible.
Some folks at IBM's China Research lab
have been doing some work in the area which they published [1] at
the 1st Asian Sem Web Conference. It is my understanding that the code
they are using is part of the IBM Integrated Ontology Development Toolkit
made available through the Alphaworks program
> KV> 1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability
> KV> here is being achieved here by leveraging relational database
> KV> technology (which is acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping
> KV> OWL instance reasoning operations to appropriate SQL queries on
> KV> the u
> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KV> OWL reasoners support two types of reasoning:
KV> 1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability
KV> here is being achieved here by leveraging relational database
KV> technology (which is acknowledged to be sc
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
OWL reasoners support two types of reasoning:
1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability here is being
achieved here by leveraging relational database technology (which is
acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping OWL instance
OWL reasoners support two types of reasoning:
1. ABox reasoning (reasoning about instance data). Scalability here is being
achieved here by leveraging relational database technology (which is
acknowledged to be scalable) and mapping OWL instance reasoning operations to
appropriate SQL queries on
28 matches
Mail list logo
