<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/19993/Scalable_Highly_Expressive_Reasoner</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2010, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:06:03 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>Comment by righard</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?321985</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?321985</guid>
			<description>This article makes me feel stupid <img src="/images/emo/smile.gif" alt=";)" /></description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (righard)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Comment by righard</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?321996</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?321996</guid>
			<description>Yeah, I'm with you there. I thought about posting it in the humor category - just to test whether anyone who does understand it has a sense of one.</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (LostAirman)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: Comment by righard</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?322097</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?322097</guid>
			<description>Don't feel stupid <img src="/images/emo/smile.gif" alt=";)" /> .  The problem is just that the paper is using a lot of technical jargon without explaining it properly.  For a much clearer overview of what is going on, see:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language</a> <br />
or<br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/</a><br />
<br />
Basically, it's an automated theasaurus on steroids.  You build a database of things(classifiers) that you know about objects, then the computer can use it to infer things about other objects.  So, for example.  If you tell it that:<br />
<b>Chardonnay</b> is an alcoholic drink<br />
<b>Chardonnay</b> is made from grapes<br />
<b>Wine</b> is an alcoholic drink<br />
<b>Wine</b> is made from grapes<br />
<br />
Then, if you tell your semantic-web engine to search for wines, when it comes across a Chardonnay listed, it will be able to infer that it is a wine without you actually telling it that.  Of course that is a very basic example.  Another good example is searching a drug database to infer wether 2 drugs might have side-effects when taken together, based on incomplete data.<br />
<br />
As far as I can tell, what is special about the IBM approach, is that it uses 2 algorithms to resolve relationships.  <br />
1. A fast algorithm quickly tries to eliminate whole sections of the classifier database by asking special 'aggregations' about the query.  so, if the results of asking the Ciders class 'Is a Wine?' and 'Is not a Wine?' are identical, then all Ciders can be eliminated from the query.<br />
2. Then a full, traditional algorithm is used on the subset of classes that cannot be eliminated.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (stestagg)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
