The MathServe System for Semantic Web Reasoning Services

  • Jürgen Zimmer
  • Serge Autexier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4130)


In recent years, formal verification of hardware and software components has increasingly attracted interest from both academia and industry. The widespread use of automated reasoning techniques requires tools that are easy to use and support standardised protocols and data exchange formats. In [1] the first author presented the MathWeb Software Bus, a first step towards re-usable reasoning services. The MathWeb-SB had several drawbacks which limited its usability. For example, it had no service brokering capabilities and the user had to know exactly which reasoning system to use to solve a problem and how to access it.


Service Composition Simple Object Access Protocol Automate Theorem Prove Reasoning Problem Reasoning Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Zimmer, J., Kohlhase, M.: System Description: The Mathweb Software Bus for Distributed Mathematical Reasoning. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 139–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin, D., et al.: OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services (2004),
  3. 3.
    Schreiner, W., Caprotti, O.: The MathBroker Project (2001),
  4. 4.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, F.U.A.J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (2004),
  5. 5.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The CADE-20 Automated Theorem Proving Competition. AI Communications (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zimmer, J., Meier, A., Sutcliffe, G., Zhang, Y.: Integrated Proof Transformation Services. In: Benzmüller, C., Windsteiger, W. (eds.) PROCof the Workshop on Computer-Supported Mathematical Theory Development, Cork, Ireland (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meier, A.: TRAMP: Transformation of Machine-Found Proofs into Natural Deduction Proofs at the Assertion Level. In: McAllester, D. (ed.) CADE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1831, pp. 460–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sutcliffe, G., Zimmer, J., Schulz, S.: Communication Fomalisms for Automated Theorem Proving Tools. In: Sorge, V., Colton, S., Fisher, M., Gow, J. (eds.) Proc. of the IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Agents and Automated Reasoning (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: Evaluating General Purpose Automated Theorem Proving Systems. Artificial Intelligence 131(1-2), 39–54 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veloso, M., et al.: Integrating Planning and Learning: The PRODIGY Architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 7(1) (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Zimmer
    • 1
  • Serge Autexier
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.FB InformatikUniversität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.DFKISaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations