Sign on

SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service

· Find Similar Abstracts (with default settings below)
· Also-Read Articles (Reads History)
·
· Translate This Page
Title:
Comparison of Ontology Reasoners: Racer, Pellet, Fact++
Authors:
Huang, T.; Li, W.; Yang, C.
Affiliation:
AA(W. T. WOODSON HIGH SCHOOL, W. T. WOODSON HIGH SCHOOL 9525 Main Street Fairfax, VA 22031, Fairfax, VA 22031, United States ; ), AB(George Mason University, CISC, George Mason University Research Building 1 4400 Univ. Dr. Fairfax, VA, 22030, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States ; ), AC(George Mason University, CISC, George Mason University Research Building 1 4400 Univ. Dr. Fairfax, VA, 22030, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States ; )
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #IN13A-1068
Publication Date:
12/2008
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
0545 Modeling (4255), 1800 HYDROLOGY, 1819 Geographic Information Systems (GIS), 6339 System design
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2008: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:
2008AGUFMIN13A1068H

Abstract

In this paper, we examine some key aspects of three of the most popular and effective Semantic reasoning engines that have been developed: Pellet, RACER, and Fact++. While these reasonably advanced reasoners share some notable similarities, it is ultimately the creativity and unique nature of these reasoning engines that have resulted in the successes of each of these reasoners. Of the numerous dissimilarities, the most obvious example might be that while Pellet is written in Java, RACER employs the Lisp programming language and Fact++ was developed using C++. From this and many other distinctions in the system architecture, we can understand the benefits of each reasoner and potentially discover certain properties that may contribute to development of an optimal reasoner in the future. The objective of this paper is to establish a solid comparison of the reasoning engines based on their system architectures, features, and overall performances in real world application. In the end, we expect to produce a valid conclusion about the advantages and problems in each reasoner. While there may not be a decisive first place among the three reasoners, the evaluation will also provide some answers as to which of these current reasoning tools will be most effective in common, practical situations.
Bibtex entry for this abstract   Preferred format for this abstract (see Preferences)
   

Find Similar Abstracts:

Use: Authors
Title
Keywords (in text query field)
Abstract Text
Return: Query Results Return    items starting with number
Query Form
Database: Astronomy
Physics
arXiv e-prints