[rdflib-dev] Re: Reasoning with Fact++ in rdflib
Dear colleagues and friends, after 6 years from my initial posting I am very happy to announce the full integration of the FaCT++ reasoner with the RDFLib: https://github.com/tilde-lab/pyfactxx To achieve that we had to upgrade the original reasoner: rewrite individuals support, present a unified access point for arbitrary SPARQL queries (thanks to Dr. Ivan Rygaev), and expose all the required C++ interfaces to RDFLib via the Coras interface (thanks to Dr. Artur Wroblewski). Enjoy! And Merry Christmas to all of you. EB -- http://github.com/RDFLib --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rdflib-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rdflib-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/3e7f29a0-a3c1-4211-bc2f-181a58c1360an%40googlegroups.com.
[rdflib-dev] Re: Reasoning with Fact++ in rdflib
Hi Artur, I don't know which solution is "right". It seems that we may not need owl-cpp library, since the IO can be handled with rdflib. Moreover there's a lack of support of different ontology formats (e.g. Turtle) in owl-cpp, so rdflib is more universal in this context. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the huge ontologies work well inside rdflib. At least from my experience they require explicit "sys.setrecursionlimit" call to be read properly. And since Fact++ is something about performance and capacity, I think, we need to be careful, not to turn rdflib in a bottleneck here. In this sense, I'd bet on owl-cpp and refuse of rdflib or may be follow your cffi idea. I'll write you a personal email to discuss our aims. Best, Evgeny -- http://github.com/RDFLib --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rdflib-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rdflib-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rdflib-dev@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/0c9afc2f-bf15-422c-8e4c-7108443b7308%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[rdflib-dev] Re: Reasoning with Fact++ in rdflib
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:49:46 PM UTC, Evgeny wrote: > Fact++ is a very fast highly optimized open-source reasoner written in C++. > It works with DL axioms via DIG interface. Java OWL API is internally > supported, also C++ API exists (http://owl-cpp.sourceforge.net), which > provides Python bindings. At this point, conceptually nothing seems to hinder > usage of this reasoner with rdflib. > > What do you think? Maybe someone already tried them together? Please, share > your experience. Hi, I want to try to integrate FaCT++ with rdflib. I have some initial Python bindings to FaCT++.C library (C version of FaCT++) using cffi https://bitbucket.org/wrobell/factplusplus/src/master/factpp/ I looked at FuXi's N3RuleStore class and my understanding is that the best way to integrate FaCT++ reasoner with rdflib is to create appropriate rdflib store. It seems, that if persistence is required, then two different rdflib stores have to be combined. Or is there better solution? Also, owl-cpp it is worth looking at, i.e.Adaptor_triple::axiom method in ./lib/logic/factpp/adaptor_triple.cpp file. This is my starting point at the moment. Regards, Artur -- http://github.com/RDFLib --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rdflib-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rdflib-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rdflib-dev@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rdflib-dev/5c3fccf6-1cfe-4c4f-990f-24f8b3a5b77b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
