Change Paths In Reasoning !

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    1 Favorite

    Change Paths In Reasoning ! - Presentation Transcript

    1. Change paths in reasoning! Raphael Volz FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Universität Karlsruhe (TH) Karlsruhe, Germany 11.11.2007
    2. Proposition
      • We need a consensus benchmark
      • Approximate is better than nothing
      • Tractable languages make speed
      • Incremental reasoning is smart
    3. We need a consensus benchmark (1) Recent Performance Benchmark @ FZI Note: Joint work with Jürgen Bock, Qiu Ji, Peter Haase, Pellet performance close to Racer, Sesame preformance close to OWLIM Is this evaluation representative???
    4. We need a consensus benchmark (2) Shortcomings of various benchmarks Source: Timo Weithörner et al., What‘s wrong with owl benchmarks, Proc. of 2nd int. Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems (SSWS 2006)
    5. Need for a consensus benchmark (3) Improvements Achieved with TREC Source: E. M. Voorhees, TREC: Improving Information Access through Evaluation, American Society for Information Science and Technology   Vol. 32, No. 1  Oct/Nov 2005 Consensus Metric Consensus Data Sets
    6. Approximate is better than nothing (1) Ontologies in WATSON Corpus Source: Mathieu d‘Acquin et al., Characterizing Knowledge on the Semantic Web with Watson, EON 2007 Workshop, Busan, Korea We need to approximate with OWL DL reasoners
    7. Approximate is better than nothing (2)
      • Idea derived from FOL work
      Source: Hitzler and Vrandecic, Resolution-based approximate reasoning for OWL DL, in Y. Gil et al. (Eds.): Proc. of ISWC 2005, LNCS 3729, pp. 383–397, 2005.
    8. Approximate is better than nothing (3)
      • Idea derived from FOL work
      Source: Hitzler and Vrandecic, Resolution-based approximate reasoning for OWL DL, in Y. Gil et al. (Eds.): Proc. of ISWC 2005, LNCS 3729, pp. 383–397, 2005.
    9. Approximate is better than nothing (3)
      • Syntactic approaches ( possibly unsound )
        • Stuckenschmidt & van Harmelen 2002
        • Wache, Groot, & Stuckenschmidt 2005
        • Hitzler & Vrandecic 2005
        • Groot, Stuckenschmidt & Wache 2005
        • Hurtado, Poulovassilis, & Wood 2006
      • Approaches based on Knowledge Compilation
        • Selman & Kautz 1991
        • Pan & Thomas 2007
    10. Tractable languages make speed (1) Dez 2003 - DAML.ORG Corpus Source: Mathieu d‘Acquin et al., Characterizing Knowledge on the Semantic Web with Watson, EON 2007 Workshop, Busan, Korea Jul 2007 - WATSON Corpus Source: Raphael Volz, Web Ontology Reasoning with logic databases, dissertation, university of karlsruhe, 2004 Tractable Languages dominate (and will continue to do so)
    11. Tractable languages make speed (2) Source: Markus Krötzsch, Sebastian Rudolph, and Pascal Hitzler; Complexity of Horn Description Logics Technical Report, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, 2007 Combined complexity of various DLs 1 1 1 1 3 # Available Reasoners (known to me)
    12. Incremental reasoning is smart (1) Incremental answers is what we expect on the web Standard expectation for query answering on the web
    13. Incremental reasoning is smart (2)
      • Alternate possible interpretations of incremental reasoning
        • Maintain state information from previous reasoning cycles when dealing with change to the KB (Pellet interpretation)
        • Provide answers / results incrementally (anytime behaviour)
      Incremental reasoning saves work Source: C. Halaschek-Wiener et al. Description Logic Reasoning for Dynamic A-Boxes, 2006 DL Workshop, CEUR WS 189
    14. The ideal Semantic WEB reasoning approach time Quality as a combination of soundness and completness
      • Functional Qualities
      • Measurable quality
      • Recognizable quality
      • Monotonicity
      • Consistency
      • Diminishing returns
      • Interruptability
      • Preemtability
      Source: Shlomo Zilberstein, Using Anytime Algorithms in Intelligent Systems, AI Magazine, Fall 1996 HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU !!!

    + loffenauerloffenauer, 3 years ago

    custom

    1012 views, 1 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    Presentation of my position paper published at the more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 1012
      • 1012 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 1
    • Downloads 28
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories