[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] big ontology

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: kendall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:21:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <48973.>

> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:13:40 +0100
> From: scorek <scorek@xxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] big ontology (eClassOWL) and reasoning
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <70363782.20080114101340@xxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Thank you for your help.
> The thing is that this ontology is really big and I am
> pretty sceptical as far as the performance topic is concerned.
> but will try it out!
> br,
> Pawel    (01)

Big in what sense? As Alan's message implies, there are different kinds of 
ontology bigness: big abox? big tbox? both? And, of course, the other issue is 
what expressivity is eClassOWL?    (02)

SHER is a good approach for big aboxes, though I worry about its IP status, 
since there are rumors of patents. Too bad, really, though not surprising given 
that the work happened at IBM.    (03)

Pellet (http://pellet.owldl.com/) is a reasonable choice for some kinds of 
large OWL ontologies, including ones dominated by relatively inexpressive but 
large tboxes. NCI Thesaurus is one such example, which Pellet now classifies in 
a few seconds.    (04)

Finally, what kind of performance for which reasoning services do you most care 
about?    (05)

All of these issues are tradeoffs central to ontology engineering, etc.    (06)

Kendall Clark    (07)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [ontolog-forum] big ontology, kendall <=