On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Joshua TAYLOR <[email protected]> wrote: > 2) I'm only constructing this model to eventually be used with a > Pellet reasoner, so would it be OK to add the subclass axiom by > skipping the OntModel altogether and just adding the appropriate RDF > representation of the axiom?
After a few moments, I thought I should clarify, lest it sound like I'm asking for something I'm not. I've written some Ruby code that generates some instance data (and a couple of subclass axioms). This code works at the RDF/triples level rather than the OWL level (though I did define a few helper procedures to make some common OWL constructions easier). I'm now translating this Ruby code to Java to consolidate the code. I'd started using an OntModel because it seemed like it would be a bit easier to do the ontological constructions. Most of the data is pretty simple though, and it wouldn't be much more trouble to do it directly at the RDF level. Though it's handy to be able to use the OntModel to browse the data, I don't really need that capability at the moment. I'm just constructing the model to use later with a Pellet reasoner. If the Pellet reasoner sees the underlying (non OntModel) Model, and gets what it needs from the RDF directly, then I don't mind working at the RDF level. If I take this approach (working at the RDF/triples level), it would be fine to use a blank node in as a "name" for the property, right? And Pellet would still get to see it in the proper OWL DL way, right? Thanks for your help and patience, //JT -- Joshua Taylor, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~tayloj/
