Thank's a lot for the advices. For now, I've decided to keep with the Fuseki 1
style single config.ttl, where I put the entity maps at the end of the file.
This allows me to re-use the definition(s) for temporary configuration files
used during batch data loading and indexing.
csplit --quiet
OK, thanks for the reply! I'll look into the details of jsonld-java.
Best,
Nikola
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Hi Nikola,
>
> Jena uses the jsonld-java project for JSON-LD support.
>
> Andy
>
> https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java
>
>
>
On 23/12/15 14:33, Neubert, Joachim wrote:
Has anybody a working configuration which produces separate log files for
Fuseki as a Tomcat webapp?
A $FUSEKI_BASE/log4j.properties file is not interpreted. One reason for this is
that the binary Tomcat distribution doesn't use log4j
It is possible to have both the ontology/inference graph and the base
data available in the same query when using the general purpose dataset
implementation.
Then, parts of the query can go to the inference graph and parts to the
base data.
Andy
On 23/12/15 12:40, Dave Reynolds
Has anybody a working configuration which produces separate log files for
Fuseki as a Tomcat webapp?
A $FUSEKI_BASE/log4j.properties file is not interpreted. One reason for this is
that the binary Tomcat distribution doesn't use log4j
Thanks for the hint - may take some diving ...
Cheers, Joachim
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Andy Seaborne [mailto:a...@apache.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Dezember 2015 16:05
An: users@jena.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Fuseki 2 logging under Tomcat
On 23/12/15 14:33, Neubert, Joachim
Hi Mark,
Tricky.
There isn't a good way to turn off or modify optimization for parts of a
query without affecting the whole query. Jena 3.0.1 had a combination
of changes - hash join but also stronger flattening queries into the
form you don't want for the first part.
The best I have come
Hi Andy.
That's cracked it. I was wondering about the sub-select route, but
wasn't sure how to code the intersection part. I just tweaked it to
return the score from the text query
Your formulation
200 OK (231 ms)
That's 200 OK by me...
Enjoy the holidays
Mark
Technology Lead, Iotic Labs
Hi Chris,
As Andy mentioned there is some magic support for direct relationships
in the reasoner, but also in the Ontology API.
The RDFS and various OWL reasoners (especially OWLMicro) all include the
TransitiveReasoner underneath. The TransitiveReasoner is custom code
(outside of the rule
Hi Andy.
More experiments this morning. I originally only send you a small part
of a larger query just to expose the problem in its simplest form. And
your switches work well in that case (i.e. first formulation below
*with* the comments.)
But... There's a problem when using the switches in
10 matches
Mail list logo