2010
DOI: 10.1007/s10462-010-9197-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantic web reasoners and languages

Abstract: Semantic web reasoners and languages enable the semantic web to function. Some of the latest reasoning models developed in the last few years are: DLP, FaCT, RACER, Pellet, MSPASS, CEL, Cerebra Engine, QuOnto, KAON2, HermiT and others. Some software tools such as Protégé, Jena and others also have been developed, which provide inferencing as well as ontology development and management environments. These reasoners usually differ in their inference procedures, supporting logic, completeness of reasoning, expres… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(40 reference statements)
0
34
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As the semantic annotation and enrichment of moving objects and their trajectories is performed in a semantic way, the use of ontologies definitely can play a key role, as well as semantic web standards (e.g., RDFS, OWL) and related technologies, such as reasoners (Dentler, Cornet, ten Teije, & de Keizer, 2011;Mishra & Kumar, 2011). Services that a moving object can access, or can find interesting at a certain moment, depend on the continuously changing context, i.e., a contextual trajectory; the relevant services may change or behave differently according to the changes in the context.…”
Section: Semantic Representation Of Moving Objectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As the semantic annotation and enrichment of moving objects and their trajectories is performed in a semantic way, the use of ontologies definitely can play a key role, as well as semantic web standards (e.g., RDFS, OWL) and related technologies, such as reasoners (Dentler, Cornet, ten Teije, & de Keizer, 2011;Mishra & Kumar, 2011). Services that a moving object can access, or can find interesting at a certain moment, depend on the continuously changing context, i.e., a contextual trajectory; the relevant services may change or behave differently according to the changes in the context.…”
Section: Semantic Representation Of Moving Objectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It performs semantics injection to mobility data managed and stored at the mobile user device according to semantic concepts and ontologies defined for specific domains. Based on the semantic representation of mobility data, this layer provides storage, query processing, reasoning, and analysis functionalities over the semantic representation of moving objects based on semantic techniques such as ontologies (Ding et al, 2007;Gruber, 1993;Horrocks, 2008;Uschold & Gruninger, 2004) and reasoners (Dentler et al, 2011;Mishra & Kumar, 2011) while employing privacy-preserving mechanisms. This layer may benefit from access to a Semantic Management of Big Mobility Data and Trajectories layer provided by existing servers.…”
Section: Framework Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are many other existing semantic reasoners like OWLIM [38], [39], FaCT++ [40], KAON [41], Racer [42] or more recently HermiT [43] to cite just some of them. In the literature there is a huge scientific production devoted to semantic reasoners benchmarking, being the work of Mishra & Kumar [44] one of the newest and more complete reviews.…”
Section: System Corementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quite a number of papers, particularly [19], highlight the importance of time in the semantic web by fully expressing most temporal concepts [2], [6], [17][18][19], [24][25], [31], [34], [35], [42]. Based on these papers, it is clear that a gap exists in describing temporal query languages.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%