Re: SPARQL vs Jena rules

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:48:51 +0200, Dave Reynolds wrote: On 30/08/17 15:10, baran...@gmail.com wrote: PS: I wonder why Dave doesn't comment in this thread. Perhaps because he thinks, Lorenz is ok, i myself cannot stand the low-level-knowledge of the users in

Re: SPARQL vs Jena rules

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 11:54:36 +0200, Lorenz B. wrote: Hello Baran, Kind regards, Lorenz I think statements like On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:52:46 +0200, Lorenz Buehmann wrote: Inferencing and querying are

Re: SPARQL vs Jena rules

I think statements like On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:52:46 +0200, Lorenz Buehmann wrote: Inferencing and querying are totally different things. So why are you thinking about refactoring the whole project? or in next posting Again, why do you compare

Re: Return nested JSON results

On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:51:34 +0200, Laura Morales wrote: That's ok, but i wanted to know what kind of app is querying your Fuseki database? Only a hint.. I know it sounds 'fundamentally' not essential, but for 'me' it is the practice of developement. Well yeah, I don't

Re: Return nested JSON results

On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:32:03 +0200, Laura Morales wrote: Sorry, i couldn't follow this thread in details, what kind of app (it is not a Jena app, that's clear to me) do you have querying your Fuseki database? When i know this, the rest of this thread could perhaps be

Re: Return nested JSON results

On Tue, 16 May 2017 18:18:30 +0200, Laura Morales wrote: This looks like an example of how to use the feature from Java. I'd like to know if I can use this "JSON-LD framing" thing via the SPARQL endpoint (querying Fuseki). Sorry, i couldn't follow this thread in

Re: Jena bindings

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 07:35:40 +0200, Laura Morales wrote: Basically what I'd like to try is connecting to the database without the overhead of HTTP requests (right now I'm sending HTTP requests to Fuseki). Is there any way to do this? It looks like this could be possible

Re: Slow query execution

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:36:38 +0200, Laura Morales wrote: I've downloaded wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu RDF dataset, which is a quite large one (about 1.3GB). This is an example entity from the dataset SELECT * WHERE { wn31:11740-n ?p ?o } 1 rdf:type wno:Synset 2

Re: Jena native store indexes

Hello, you generelized the problem of standardisating suggesting to standardise first the extensions as an important step to the mean standardisation, i think. To formulate similar things are essentially important for all users and very stimulating. Since so many years the first eMail i

Re: Jena native store indexes

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:05:19 +0200, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: "Should have been, could have been". It is how it is, your opinion is just one of many and you will achieve nothing by complaining on this list. Go create a W3C Community Group and initiate some real work

Re: Jena native store indexes

Hello, You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the standardisation process works. The point is not whether i understand standardisation or not, the point is your argument At the time that SPARQL 1.1 was standardised indexing was not a widely used extension so there was no

Re: Jena native store indexes

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

Re: Jena native store indexes

When writing SPARQL queries, should I be aware of any particular index? Should I create new indexes myself (how)? You 'can' create text-indexes for selected properties of your data for text search with a much better performance:

Re: tdbloader2 ignore ill-formed nquads

Spaces in URIs are particularly problematic; even if you can get them into the data, using the data will likely break. When ingesting data from somewhere else, it is good to check it before loading, then fix as needed before loading. riot --check file Andy

Re: Why we need Fuseki

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:52:18 +0200, Andrew U Frank wrote: what went wrong is the HUGE competition from google, financed by advertising. everybody has learned that search for information is free (except stock market and a few others). the investment in the "good

Re: Why we need Fuseki

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:33:48 +0200, Andy Seaborne wrote: i am sure to run an official Fuseki-'Reference' public endpoint is a very harmless and for everyone comprehensible suggestion... Open source, at Apache at least, is about community. The code is available and anyone

Re: Why we need Fuseki

In practical terms hosting a public endpoint is an expensive business. To take DBPedia as an example it is billions of triples and so needs appropriate hardware. Let’s assume you wanted to host this in Amazon EC2 and wanted to use a r3.8xlarge instance (32 cores, 244 GiB RAM, 2x320GB

Re: Why we need Fuseki

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:40:00 +0200, A. Soroka wrote: On Apr 4, 2017, at 10:25 AM, baran...@gmail.com wrote: what kind of problems do you see, i have a local Fuseki server running downloaded nt-Dbpedia datasets, which i regulary actualize. That doesn't really help anyone

Re: Why we need Fuseki

what kind of problems do you see, i have a local Fuseki server running downloaded nt-Dbpedia datasets, which i regulary actualize. That doesn't really help anyone compare Jena and Virtuoso, does it? :) Ofcourse it does, if you run those datasets as a public Fuseki-endpoint like

Re: Why we need Fuseki

I've got nothing against DBPedia, although I don't think it's particularly useful to make a comparison in that way between Virtuoso and Jena, unless you are ready to do the work to ensure that the actual resourcing for the two services is the same, forever. what kind of problems do you

Re: Why we need Fuseki

This sounds like an interesting idea. Do you have some time to devote to it? What database are you thinking of serving? Well, we can take the same as Virtuoso, Dbpedia-dataset, THE BEST would be EXACTLY the same as Virtuoso to make comparisons, but this is an old 'idea' of mine, here in

Re: Why we need Fuseki

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:54:53 +0200, javed khan wrote: Hi Why we need fuseki server in semantic web applications. We can run SPARQL queries without it, like we do using Jena syntax. If Fuseki would have had (like Virtuoso) a reference public endpoint with a well

Re: Fuseki support other query languages

On Sun, 05 Mar 2017 16:24:03 +0100, Chris Dollin wrote: On 04/03/17 13:49, Laura Morales wrote: well I don't have a specific use case in mind, I just find SPARQL very counter-intuitive and difficult to reason with Could you be more specific about these

Re: Fuseki support other query languages

On Sat, 04 Mar 2017 16:10:56 +0100, Laura Morales wrote: OK if I get this right, TDB is the actual database storing all triples/n-quads, and Fuseki is a layer on top of it whose purpose is to parse SPARQL queries and retrieve triples from TDB. Right? YES, and if

Re: Fuseki support other query languages

I think it was a false estimation to allure SQL folks for Semantic Web with SPARQL. SPARQL is rather cumbersome and counter-intuitive to work with... and that was one of the important reasons, why they ignored SPARQL. There are also other reasons. But the most important one is: No

Re: Benefits of Semantic web

Adrian, *Is it a possible scenario to think a Semantic Web environment controlled only by rules?* Yes. Executable English is rules-only on the surface. Internally, it automatically generates and runs networked SQL. Here's an example:

Re: Benefits of Semantic web

Hello, I still need some explanation. What is the advantage of using ontology in our semantic web application. Its just that we can share it? Second, what is the advantage of Jena rules? A task completed with an RDF API and same task with Jena rules, why people prefer rules? i think, kumar's

Re: Benefits of Semantic web

Adrian, i think this is a rather old and not yet fully developed application with a UI needing a bit freshing up for smoothly working, databases are (I tried with commodities1/2) also old and rather small. Is gold no commodity? if i put a question with an agent the effect is only

Re: Benefits of Semantic web

Hello, On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:02:46 +0100, David Jordan wrote: I agree that have some discussion about this is very useful. Many of us have tried to evangelize semantic web technologies in our organizations and > have struggled and failed because we cannot