Thanks for explanation. I have a couple of comments though:
On 5/25/07, MovGP0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> Yes, I needed a query that'll work under assumption that "has friend"
> is the
> inverse of "has friend".
There are two ways for doing so. The RDF and the OWL way.
In RDF you have to make two relations:
(A , has friend , B)
(B , has friend , A)
In OWL you have to define that "has friend" is symmetrical:
(has friend , rdf:type , owl:SymmetricProperty)
(A , has friend , B)
But this comes with the problem that when you define:
(has friend , rdf:type , owl:SymmetricProperty)
(A , has friend , B)
(A , has friend , C)
It implies that C and B are friends.
Therefore "has friend" is not symmetrical as you might thought.
Instead "has friend" is just the opposite of "is friend of".
The correct OWL-like relation is therefore:
(has friend , owl:inverseOf , is friend of)
(A , has friend , B)
(B , has friend , A) // only if so, because it don't need to be
I was talking about this owl:inverseOf type of relation and it looks like
this will solve my problem.
In SMW there is currently only RDF support.
What you are missing is the OWL-DL reasoning.
>
> I wonder if storing all semantic data in some external storage that
> supports
> sparql would be better for SMW.
Originally it was intended to use the JENA-Framework to do so.
But the problem appears that JENA is written in Java.
According to the rules of Wikimedia Java was not acceptable, because
Java is not really free.
Its intended to export the propitary database as RDF.
With these RDF you can import the knowledge into a specialised Semantic
database like JENA.
JENA can provide reasoning and SPARQL.
Later the Export might be done automatically.
Do you know if storage and querying interface is abstracted and I can write
my own store? do you know of any project like that or any other experience
with it? Export is good, but I don't want to store multiple copies of data
just to use different querying languages.
I remember someone suggested using RAP - does this solve the problem? Is it
reliable direction?
> I understand that simple queries need to stay simple but complex ones
> should
> still be possible and there is no reason to invent new query language
for
> those.
That's true.
There is no need to hack the parser.
The only thing is that OWL-DL reasoning is not implemented.
This is, because support is currently for RDF only.
I guess it might be a really good thing to implement reasoning into SMW.
It would be cool if the database layout would implement a new row for
thracking the origin of a statement.
Origin | Subject | Relation | Object
Then you can store from which article a specific statement comes from.
Using this allows it to find and delete the statements that needs
updates after editing a article.
After the old statements are deleted you have to do the reasoning for
the changed article again.
I'm not 100% sure if it's wise for SMW team to concentrate on new storage
engine and querying language - in my view, it's a task bigger then whole SMW
project. SMW goal of making it usable by regular Wikipedia users sets some
limitations on syntax and complexity and make this project half baked unless
it can scale to full version querying language and largest stores -
otherwise it'll be no more then regular Wikipedia categories with a little
kick.
I'll be happy to discuss the approach where well developed RDF storage
engine is used through an abstract interface and can provide some _standard_
querying language (e.g. SPARQL) and SMW maps it's simple query language to
this standard querying language plus all the functionality of full featured
query language is available as well (can be limited to administrators if
performance is an issue).
I believe that being simple but expandable is one of the most important
qualities of RDF and stuff - triples stores versus traditional relational
databases is a huge win in abstraction and possibly scalability, it makes it
easier to use different tools if standard languages and paradigms are used.
I'm really interested in this technology, but it seams that SMW is currently
not scalable in terms of complexity of information needs and not very
scalable and efficient in terms of storage. I'll need to improve that for my
project but don't want to dig too deep into application code.
But the biggest problem with reasoning still keeps.
When you ie. define something like:
(has friend , owl:inverseOf , is friend of)
(A , has friend , B)
(A , has friend , C)
then you result in:
(has friend , owl:inverseOf , is friend of)
(A , has friend , B)
(A , has friend , C)
(B , is friend of , A)
(C , is friend of , A)
The ammount of information gets nearly doubled with a single line.
Resoning is not scaleable, which can be a bad thing for a really big
database like Wikipedia.
ys, MovGP0
x*2 data is actually pretty good in terms of scalability x^2 is bad.
Sergey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
