Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive analysis of semantic web reasoners and tools: a survey

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ontologies are emerging as best representation techniques for knowledge based context domains. The continuing need for interoperation, collaboration and effective information retrieval has lead to the creation of semantic web with the help of tools and reasoners which manages personalized information. The future of semantic web lies in an ontology which describes relationship between terms, and will serve as a foundation for establishing a shared understanding between applications. In this paper, we surveyed and compared numerous reasoning models, ontology tools and express well defined Web services for user with different annotations. We compared latest and traditional reasoners like Pellet, RACER, HermiT, FaCT++ with respect to their features supported by them. Similarly, different variety of ontology development, querying and designing tools like Protégé, Jena, SWOOP, Oiled, Apollo, etc. have been compared to predict the inference support through utilizing several features backed up by them. Finally, this paper presents visualized comparison among all reasoners, tools with the aid of their supporting features or characteristics and classified them as strong, average or weak. In addition, we have also classified the reasoner on the basis of their response time and it was observed that Pellet has lowest response time whereas Racer has highest response time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abburu, S. (2012). A survey on ontology reasoners and comparison. International Journal of Computer Applications, 57(17), 33–39.

  • Areces, C., Bouma, W., & Rijke, M. D. (1999). Description logics and feature interaction. In Lambrix et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshops on description logics (DL’99). Sweden: Linkoping.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arpirez, J., Corcho, O., Fernandez-Lopez, M., Gomez-Perez, A. (2001). WebODE: a Scalable Workbench for Ontological Engineering. First International Conference on Knowledge Capture (KCAP'01). ACM Press (1-58113-380-4), (pp: 6–13).

  • Baader F, Nutt W (2003). Basic Description Logics. In F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), The Description Logic.

  • Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B. (2006a). Efficient reasoning in ELˆ+, in proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on description logics (DL2006). CEUR-WS.

  • Baader, F., Lutz, C., Suntisrivaraporn, B. (2006b). CEL—a polynomial-time reasoner for life science ontologies. In U. Furbach, N. Shankar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint conference on automated reasoning (IJCAR’06), (pp. 287–291). Lect Notes Artif Intell 4130.

  • Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I., Goble, C., Stevens, R. (2001). Oiled: a reasonable ontology editor for the semantic web. In Working Notes of the 2001 Int. Description Logics Workshop (DL-2001), http://SunSITE.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE/Publications/CEUR-WS/.

  • Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Sci Am. May, 2001.

  • Bhoopalam, K., Haarslev, V. (2005). Fire–Extending Racer by an Engine for SWRL Rules. http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~haarslev/publications/DL2005-Fire-a.pdf.

  • Blackburn P, van Benthem J, Wolter F (eds) (2006). Handbook of modal logic. North Holland

  • Borgida, A., Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., Resnick, L.A. (1989). CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, (pp. 59–67).

  • Brachman, R.J., Fikes, R.E., Levesque, H.J. (1983). KRYPTON: integrating terminology and assertion. In Proceedings of the 3th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’83), (pp. 31–35).

  • Dentler, K., Cornet, R., ten Teije, A., de Keizer, N. (2011). Comparison of reasoners for large ontologies in the OWL 2 EL profile, Semantic Web Journal, 71–87.

  • Domingue & Tadzebao (1998). Webonto: Discussing, Browsing and Editing Ontologies on the Web. In Proc. Of the Eleventh Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (KAW98, Banff, 1998).

  • Domingue, J., Tadzebao and WebOnto (1998). Discussing, browsing, and editing ontologies on the web. 11th knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, April 18th-23rd, Banff, Canada.

  • Dresden, T.U. (2006). A polynomial-time classifier for the description logic EL+, http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/systems/cel/.

  • Farquhar A., Fikes R., Rice, J. (1996). The Ontolingua Server: A tool for collaborative ontology construction. In the 10th Knowledge Aqcuisition for Knowledge-Based Systems (KAW'96). Canada.

  • Fensel, D., & Harmelen, F. V. (2001). OIL: an ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 38–44.

  • Fikes, R., Farquhar, A., Rice, J. (1997). Tools for assembling modular ontologies in Ontolingua, Knowledge Systems Laboratory.

  • Filles, C., GmbH, S., Falkensee, N. G., Thunell, A. (2003a). Cerebra construct: inferences for end users. The twelfth international world wide web conference, Budapest, Hungary. http://www2003.org/cdrom/papers/poster/p087/Poster87.html.

  • Filles, C., Wood-Albrecht, G., & Weichhardt, F. (2003b). Pragmatic applications of the semantic web using SemTalk. Computer networks, the semantic web: an evolution for a revolution. Science Direct, 42(5), 599–615.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Stoilos, G. (2009). Hermi T: Reasoning with Large Ontologies, http://www.comlabox.ac.uk/projects/HermiT. Computing Laboratory, Oxford University.

  • Gómez-Pérez, A., Corcho, O., Fernández-López, M. (2003). Methodologies, tools and languages for building ontologies. Where is their meeting point? - Data & knowledge engineering, 123–134.

  • Gomez-Perez, A., Fernandez, M., & Corcho, O. (2001). Ontological engineering with examples from the areas of knowledge management, E-commerce and the semantic web. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O., Aspiréz, J. (2001). WebODE: A sacalable ontological engineering workbench. First International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2001) Canada.

  • Groot, P., Stuckenschmidt, H., Wache, H. (2005). Approximating description logic classification for semantic web reasoning. www.cs.vu.nl/~holger/Papers/groot_etal-05.pdf.

  • Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, ACM, 2, 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., & Welty C. (2004). An Overview of OntoClean, Handbook on Ontologies, (pp. 151–159). Springer.

  • Guo, Y., Pan, Z., & Heflin, J. (2005). LUBM: a benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics, 3, 158–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollunder, B., Laux, A., Profitlich, H.J., Trenz, T. (1991). KRIS-manual. Technical report. Deutsches Forschungszentrum fur Kunstliche Intelligenz (DFKI).

  • Horrocks, I. (1997). Optimisation techniques for expressive description logics. Technical report UMCS-97-2-1, University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science.

  • Horrocks, I. (2001). DAML + OIL: a description logic for the semantic web. Bull IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, 1–7.

  • Horrocks, I. (2003). The FaCT System. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/FaCT/. Accessed April 2003

  • Horrocks, I. (2005). Description logics in ontology applications. In B. Beckert (Ed.) proceedings of the 9th international conference on automated reasoning with analytic tableaux and related methods (TABLEAUX 2005). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 3702, 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrocks, I., Sattler, U. (2005). A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ, In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), Edinburgh, pp. 448–453.

  • Horrocks, I., Tobies, S. (2000). Reasoning with axioms: theory and practice. In Cohn et al. (Ed.) Internatinal conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’2000), (pp. 283–296).

  • Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (2001). Reference description of the DAML + OIL (march 2001) ontology markup language. http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html.

  • Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Bechhofer, S., & Tsarkov, D. (2005). OWL rules: a proposal and prototype implementation. Web Semantics, 3/1, 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hustadt, U., Schmidt, R.A. (2000). MSPASS: modal reasoning by translation and first-order resolution. In R. Dyckhoff (Ed.) Automated reasoning with analytic tableaux and related methods (TABLEAUX 2000). Lect Notes Artif Intell 1847, (pp. 67–71).

  • Kaczmarek, T.S., Bates, R., Robins, G. (1986). Recent developments in NIKL. In AAAI-86 Proceedings, www.aaai.org.

  • Kazakov, Y, Krötzsch, M., Simancík, F. (2012). ELK Reasoner: Architecture and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on OWL Reasoner Evaluation (ORE-2012) CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2012.

  • Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J. (1995). Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1104.

  • Kiryakov, A., Damova, M. (2005). Reasoning in the semantic repositories, handbook of semantic web technologies. Springer, pp. 245–258.

  • Lassila, O. and R.R. Swick (1999). Resource description framework (rdf) model and syntax specification, w3c recommendation 22. February 19. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/.

  • Lawley, M. J., Bousquet, C. (2010). Fast Classification in Protégé: Snorocket as an OWL 2 EL Reasoner, Australasian Ontology Workshop 2010 (AOW 2010): Advances in Ontologies, volume 122 of CRPIT, (pp. 45–50).

  • MacGregor, R. (1991). The evolving technology of classification-based knowledge representation systems. In J. F. Sowa (Ed.), Principles of semantic networks (pp. 385–400). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, R., Bates, R. (1987). The loom knowledge representation language. Technical report ISI/RS-87-188, University of Southern California, Information Science Institute, Marina del Rey (CA, USA).

  • Mishra R B, Kumar, S. (2010). Semantic web reasoners and languages, Springer, 2010. doi: 10.1007/s10462010-9197-3.

  • Motik, B. (2007). KAON2. http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/, website accessed on 15 Feb 2007.

  • Nebel, B. (1988). Computational complexity of terminological reasoning in BACK. Artificial Intelligence, 34/3, 371–383.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nebel, B. (1990). Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 43, 235–249.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Noy, N.F., & Musen, M.A. (2007). The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 983–1024.

  • O’Connor, M., Tu, S., Nyulas, C., Das, A., Musen, M. (2007). Querying the semantic web with SWRL. http://bmir.stanford.edu/file_asset/index.php/1125/RuleML2007DemoFinalSubmit.pdf.

  • Parsia, B., Sirin, E. (2003). Pellet: An OWL DL reasoner, MINDSWAP Research Group, Supporting Reasoners and Softwares.

  • Patel-Schneider, P.F. (1984). Small can be beautiful in knowledge representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on knowledge-based systems, 1984. An extended version appeared as Fairchild technical report 660 and FLAIR technical report 37.

  • Patel-Schneider, P.F. (1987). Decidable, logic-based knowledge representation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Available as Technical report 201/87.

  • Patel-Schneider, P.F. (1998). The classic family of knowledge representation systems. http://www.bell-labs.com/project/classic/, website last updated Nov 1998 (Patel Schneider et al. 1999).

  • Patel-Schneider PF (1999). DLP. In Proc. of the 1999 Description Logic Workshop (DL’99), CEUR Electronic Workshop Proceedings, pp. 9–13. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-22/.

  • Patel-Schneider, P.F. (2000a). NeoClassic: the C++ version of classic. http://www.bell-labs.com/project/classic/neo.html, website last updated Oct 2000.

  • Patel-Schneider, P.F. (2000b). The DLP experimental description logic system and propositional modal logic satisfiability checker. http://www-db-out.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/dlp/, website last updated Jan 2000.

  • Payne, T., & Tamma, V. (2005). Towards semantic web agents: Knowledge Web and Agent Link. Cambridge University Press, UK. Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(2), 191–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltason, C. (1991). The BACK system–an overview. SIGART Bull, 2(3), 114–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Predoiu L, & Grimm, S. (2005). Reasoner technology scan and recommendation. Data, information and process integration with semantic web services, FP6–507483, http://dip.semanticweb.org/.

  • Quantz, J., & Kindermann, C. (1990). Implementation of the BACK system version 4, KIT-report 78, Fachbereich Informatik. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quantz, J., Dunker, G., Bergmann, F., & Kellner, I. (1995). The FLEX system, KIT-report 124, Fachbereich Infor-matik. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rector, A. (2003). Description logics in medical informatics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, U. (2007). Description logic reasoners. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~sattler/reasoners.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2007.

  • Schmidt, R. (1991). Algebraic terminological representation. Technical report, Max Planck Institute for Computer Science, MPI-Report MPI-I-91-216.

  • Schmidt, R.A. (2007). MSPASS: documentation. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schmidt/mspass/documentation.html. Website last modified Feb 2007.

  • Schreibe, A.T., Wielinga, B.J., Akkermans, H., van de Velde, W., Anjewierden, A. (1994). CML: The common ads conceptual modeling language. In Proceedings of the EKAW'1994 (pp. 283).

  • Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B., Kalyanpur, A., & Katz, Y. (2007). Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(2), 51–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, G. (1990). Common lisp, the language, 2nd edition. Digital Press.

  • Sure, Y., Angele, J., Staab, S. (2003). OntoEdit: Multifaceted Inferencing for Ontology Engineering. Journal on Data Semantics I, 128–152.

  • Thomas, E., Pan J., Ren, Y. (2010). TrOWL: tractable OWL 2 reasoning infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Extended Semantic Web Conference, Springer.

  • Tsarkov, D., & Horrocks, I. (2006). FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description.www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2006/TsHo06a.pdf, 2006.

  • Vilas, W., Chutiporn, A., Ekawit, N. (1998). Reasoning about RDF elements. In Proceedings of international joint workshop on digital libraries.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India

    Aditya Khamparia

  2. Department of Computer Applications, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India

    Babita Pandey

Authors
  1. Aditya Khamparia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Babita Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Babita Pandey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khamparia, A., Pandey, B. Comprehensive analysis of semantic web reasoners and tools: a survey. Educ Inf Technol 22, 3121–3145 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9574-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9574-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation