Hello, > Are the namespaces the same?
Namespaces are different for the two ontologies. >> NOTE: For the real implementation in my case it is necessary to keep >> the two ontologies seperate due to performance reasons. > > Are you sure about that? > > If there is a performance problem it will be in the reasoning not the > storage and if you are joining the information back together again for > reasoning then nothing will have been saved by separating the storage. Please try to explain, I think I do not get the message. Of course I believe the performance problem lies in the reasoning on the ontologies. That is the reason why i keep them in two seperate TDB stores, so that i can start reasoning just on one part at a time. >> In the implementation I have two separate TDB stores for the two >> ontologies (A+B). > > If you mean literally two stores then you may find two graphs within the > same store has less overhead. Thank you for the tip, i will try this. At the moment I have two TDB instances with two seperate directories where the graphs can be found. > >> Therefore, I need to programmatically assure the fact that the >> NeapolitanPizza from TDB store A is the same as NeapolitanPizza from >> TDB store B, meaning it just states some extra information about the >> same individual. >> >> Does anyone have a suggestion about how to solve this programmatically >> in Java code? > > First, please define what you mean by the two NeopolitanPizzas being the > "same individual". > > If the URIs are the same then they are the same individual, QED. > > If the URIs are different then what are your criteria for identity? The URIs are different, as stated above, however my criteria of identity is the unqualified name of the individual (without namespace). I could unify the URI just by storing the individual with the same namespace into both ontologies. However then I would end up with one of the two ontologies containing individuals with different namespaces: for ex. OntologyA: URI of Individual A: NSA+IndividualA OntologyA: URI of Individual B: NSB+IndividualB IndividualA is an Individual that has the native namespace of OntologyA and IndividualB is an Individual that has the Namespace of OntologyB because this Individual also exists in OntologyB but with different relations and information. > I don't understand what you trying to achieve but it would seem easier > to create a merged model into which you load the selected and mapped > triples from each source. Do I get this right, that this merged model then would contain only individuals and concepts that occur in both ontological representations and need to be mapped? Thanks for your help, Best Regards, Mario
