Pellet has a quite restrictive licence (AGPLv3). And the Apache Foundation does not accept projects with such licences. I have no clue about the future plans of Clark&Parsia (the company behind Pellet).
There was a thread earlier on this list about implementing OWL2-RL with rules. I cannot remember whether the internal rules engine of Jena can manage that variant of OWL2 all by itself. In my opinion, RDFS plus the unionOf statement of OWL is ok for basic data modelling. It is roughly entity-relationships modeling. But from a business perspective, it still embraces a lot of your data structures. (comments are welcome on this assumption :) On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Jordan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Unfortunately, the Pellet library is (as far as I know) no longer maintained.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 >>> >>> >>> > >
