What do you like best about RDFox?
1. Clear and complete documentation https://docs.oxfordsemantic.tech/introduction.html .
2. Rich set of commands and options to customize solutions and attack problems efficiently.
3. Support for datalog that allows one to customize inference rules.
4. Multiple datastores and named graphs.
5. Efficiently implemented incremental and revisable reasoning.
6. Endpoint to work with datastores in Python (e.g. can perform sparql queries and export triples using Python).
7. Reasoning on axioms (importaxioms) as distinct from additional inference rules (TBox datalog file).
8. Command line interface commands and scripts.
9. Can be implemented in different places (local machine or cloud) allowing customization of available RAM etc.
10. Easy to provide feedback.
11. Extension of SPARQL with new functions amd support for RDF-star and SPARQL-star.
12. GREAT CUSTOMER SUPPORT. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you dislike about RDFox?
If you do not like something, they will take your feedback seriously and try to meet your needs in a next release. Currently, I do not like the following (mostly minor) things:
1. The SPARQL implementation does not include DESCRIBE.
2. The browser does not show the cardinality of the results (how many results did a query get?).
3. There is no autocompletion for user-created strings.
4. RDFox does not have a specific function to check consistency and satisfiability (contrast this with Protege's reasoner and Protege's Debugger plugin).
5. RDFox does not have a keyboard shortcut to comment out a line.
6. RDFox does not have a dlog file to isert the subclass relations of csd types.
7. Their TBox dlog file could be more complete concerning triples involving owl:Thing.
8. The browser does not allow to duplicate pages when the SPARQL query is long.
9. They do not extend SPARQL to include function to carry out graph analysis (e.g. shortest path). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.