It can compare two arbitrary files in your workspace, but it does this triple by triple (with special handling of blank node structures). This means that if you have changed a namespace in all triples of a file, then the system will report the whole file as different. We can add such features after we get some real-world feedback.
The next release is planned for mid June, before SemTech. Holger On May 29, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Arthur wrote: > > That is great news! Would I have to put both models in the same > namespace to do the diff? > Thanks > Arthur > > On May 29, 10:44 am, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote: >> The upcoming version of TBC-ME will have a diff tool that allows you >> to compare arbitrary files. The output of this diff will be another >> RDF model which can then be browsed in TBC or TBE or otherwise >> further >> processed with SPARQL and SPARQLMotion. >> >> This may not address all your needs out of the box, but the approach >> is very extensible and would allow you to add your own diff rules and >> algorithms. >> >> Holger >> >> On May 29, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Arthur wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> There are two parts to this question 1) how best compute differences >>> between models, and 2) how best to represent differences between >>> models? >> >>> Context: >>> I have a number of (instance) models, each sharing a common schema >>> (import), each in its own namespace, each representing one of >>> multiple >>> simulation runs in a project analyzing a common situation. Each >>> model represents a different experiment ( i.e., different >>> parameterizations) of a simulation model with results. I am >>> translating existing simulations (proprietary format) into OWL to >>> do >>> this, so this is post-hoc analysis (the end goal is to handle model >>> variation when it happens in the application using owl, but I need >>> to >>> deal with legacy simulations as well). The difference between >>> models is very small (a handful of statements), because the >>> engineers >>> are simply varying input parameters for risk analysis. This is like >>> an SCM problem in the sense that I would like to create a model >>> derivation tree, but different because it is post-hoc, and I need >>> easy >>> access to all the models for statistical aggregations (i.e., risk >>> analysis), else I could use an SCM. The objective is is to to save >>> space and gain referential integrity/normalization by for example, >>> re- >>> organizing the models into a derivation tree . >> >>> Possible Solutions: >>> Are there tools within TBC that I could use to do this? I will >>> need >>> to identify the common substructure between the models, so that the >>> largest common submodel is the root of the derivation tree, and so >>> on. What is the best way to 'diff' them, or find what is common >>> between them? I could use imports to structure the derivation >>> tree >>> or I could use SPARQL construct queries and Sparql Motion to >>> represent >>> the derivation tree more implicitly and derive the models on demand, >>> or should I simply use SVN in TBC? >> >>> Any ideas would be most welcome >>> Thanks >>> Arthur > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
