Pellet is still available, maintained, and supported by Clark & Parsia, where a commerical license is avialable if AGPL is not to your liking. There is a Pellet mailing list [1] where questions still come in and are actively monitored.
It is true - the newest reasoning implementations and focus of investments are now in Stardog - our new RDF database, which has both a community version and an enterprise version [2]. For example, Stardog supports Integrity Constraint Validation - a way to add closed world assumption style schema constraints into your model. But I digress.. Getting back on track - I do think this is a good application for Jena, and a capabilities and reqirements ontology would be a pretty cool thing to have around too :) Regards, Al Baker [1] http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users/ [2] http://www.stardog.com On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Emmanuelle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Travis, > > I'm a software engineer who had to use RDF, OWL, SPARQL and jena for > the first time recently for my master thesis. Also, I had no previous > experience building a whole application in java. I have more than 10 > years experience but never did semantic web technologies or java > before, although I knew the language. > > My first steps were to read the w3c recommendations for RDF, RDFS and > OWL then I played some with Protege following their "pizza" tutorial > to see how all that work and fit together. It didn't take long, I > don't remember how much exactly but it was fast, I'm talking of days > here, maybe 2 weeks at most. Then, after reading the Jena > documentation, I started the implementation of a web service interface > for CRUD + several data retrieval operations on the ontology stored in > a TDB dataset. That took a little longer but after a month it was up > and running. The longuest part was to design the ontology. > > Of course my experience is in the context of a masters, it's not a > professional application but it gives you an idea. Don't hesitate to > contact me if you have questions. > > Regards, > Emmanuelle > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Tripp, Travis S <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you, Milorad. > > > > Everybody else, > > > > One of the concerns I have is what the learning curve is for a team now > to Jena / RDF/s and OWL. I don't want to bring this into the team and have > them declare it a failure because the learning curve was too high. Any > idea of how long it takes for a software engineer to be somewhat functional > with Jena and RDF? > > > > Thanks, > > Travis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milorad Tosic [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:22 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit? > > > > 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 > >> > >> > >> >
