If that is true, would it make sense to fold Pellet into the Apache Jena project, or would that detract from supporting multiple reasoners?
-----Original Message----- From: Olivier Rossel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:54 AM To: [email protected]; Milorad Tosic Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit? I think RDFS (aka RDFSchema) is good with a slight dose of OWL. Please note that Jena alone cannot handle some advanced OWL structures all by itself. We usually rely upon the Pellet add-on in that case. Unfortunately, the Pellet library is (as far as I know) no longer maintained. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Milorad Tosic <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Travis, > > GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description > Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as > useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for > computational infrastructure. > > Regards, > Milorad Tosic > > > > [1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL > [2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <[email protected]> >>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM >>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit? >> >>Hello all, >> >>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. >>I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF >>/ OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it >>for querying and performing searches against. >> >>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use >>capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a >>requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A >>capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, >>etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability >>might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific >>versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. >>Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a >>minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially >>something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), >>traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated >>with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR). >> >>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and >>requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide >>any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below >>is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft: >> >>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between >>node types. For example, the following >>"ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express >>the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache >>web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the >>"WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a >>CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container >>for Apache web applications. >> >>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology >>of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL >>and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for >>querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation >>format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a >>sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this >>would be appreciated. >> >>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to >>bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL >>ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and >>properties? >> >>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate >>any guidance that can be provided. >> >>-Travis >> >> >>
