*unless you try to extract the values and do something with it in your
client code*
All of the data in our ontology should be either as data property or object
property. So cant we just use .getPropertyValue() to extract the data?
For example, a person belongs to 0.8% to ClassA and 0.2% to
Yes. But you will not be able to use the features of fuzzy OWL unless
you try to extract the values and do something with it in your client code.
> Hi Lorenz, thank you.
>
> So it means we could use it with same Jena methods and SPARQL queries
> without any changes and need of any plugin?
>
>
>
Hi Lorenz, thank you.
So it means we could use it with same Jena methods and SPARQL queries
without any changes and need of any plugin?
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Lorenz B. <
buehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> The ontologies created by the fuzzy OWL plugin in Protege are still
Idiocy IMHO is rather strong. If Jena provided specialist text indexing
natively why doesn't it provide other indexing? I process IFC files extensively
and use stored inference and secondary indexing to handle the quirks of the IFC
format. I would not expect Jena or SPARQL to provide native
The ontologies created by the fuzzy OWL plugin in Protege are still OWL
ontologies - they just add the fuzzy values to OWL annotation properties.
> I am not sure if Jena classes/API supports Fuzzy ontologies in Protege?
> Like we read an ontology in our application and query it using Jena syntax,
I am not sure if Jena classes/API supports Fuzzy ontologies in Protege?
Like we read an ontology in our application and query it using Jena syntax,
is it possible for Fuzzy ontologies created in Protege?
Any idea?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:01:34 +0200, Rob Vesse wrote:
.
In the RDF world it may still be useful to create secondary indexes as
others have noted for certain kinds of specialised search that cannot be
officially expressed in SPARQL.
Here is primarily text indexing