Inference would be on concepts and based on the relationships between them. Data will then be fecthed accordingly since they are instances of the concepts, isn't it? I am not aware of whether it is generally possible to do inference on data.
Bahador(reza)? OFOGHI, PhD Major: Information Technology ________________________________ From: Olivier Rossel <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; Bahador(reza)? OFOGHI <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:16 PM Subject: Re: Owl Ontology and TDB Individuals Is it inference on data themselves? Or on concepts only? On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Bahador(reza)? OFOGHI <[email protected] > wrote: > Thanks Olivier, > > In fact, I do need to make use of inference in the OWL ontology. This is a > big ontology (being merged with some other ontologies) only one part of > which is the names I have described. In this case, would you/anyone else > have any ideas how I might be able to get this done. > > thanks again > Bahador > > > > ________________________________ > From: Olivier Rossel <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Bahador(reza)? OFOGHI <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013 7:42 PM > Subject: Re: Owl Ontology and TDB Individuals > > > Basically, you do not have to load both the OWL and the RDF in the DB. > Such a RDF: > :nameNumberOne a :NAME. > :nameNumberOne :has_a :namePartNumberOne . > :nameNumberOne :has_a :namePartNumberTwo . > > will load just fine in Fuseki. > You can then query it without having to load the OWL in the DB. > (RDF databases are mostly schemaless). > > The OWL is here just to be understood by the domain expert who > creates the query. > > (Note: in an inference-aware DB, it *is* interesting to load both the OWL > and the RDF together, but I do not think you have the need for inference). > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Bahador(reza)? OFOGHI > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > THanks Andy and David, > > > > I have now looked at this and I still have questions! > > > > 1- when you say transactions will not work across a mixture of graphs in > a > > dataset, does that mean that I will not be able to query and/or use > > reasoners on this dataset? > > 2- if not, then what would be the best solution to keep an RDF/XML > > ontology which will have thousands of individuals? I would have thought I > > could create the structure ontology (the OWL file) and keep it separate > > from the data file (as in TDB) that will be assigned to the OWL ontology > > nodes. I am new to this field and I appreciate any hints. > > > > To make it more clear or refresh your memory, here is the problem I am > > trying to solve: > > > > I have created an ontology in OWL somewhere in which I have a node named > > NAME which includes subparts of the name in NAME_PART1, ..., NAME_PARTn. > I > > have a large CSV data file that has (many) records of names and the n > name > > parts. I will have to convert the CSV file into an RDF dataset (which I > > will find a way for, should not be too complicated). Then, I need to > make a > > connection between the RDF dataset of these records and the OWL ontology > > that keeps the relationships between the concept nodes, e.g., NAME has_a > > NAME_PART1. > > > > Given that I have the two OWL and RDF files ready, what would I have to > do > > next to be able to query over the NAMEs and NAME_PARTs. What does it take > > to glue the two files? > > > > kind regards, > > Bahador > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: David Jordan <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013 5:13 AM > > Subject: RE: Owl Ontology and TDB Individuals > > > > > > OK, now with your clarification it makes sense to me and is what I > > expected. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:03 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Owl Ontology and TDB Individuals > > > > On 15/05/13 18:47, David Jordan wrote: > > > Andy, Please clarify something. In this reply, you state * Put the > > > ontology in one named graph and the individuals in another one, or the > > > default graph, and hence in the same database? * You can put a single > > > graph from TDB into a general dataset or just work with that one graph > > > (transactions will not work across a mixture of graphs in a dataset). > > > > > > You then reference the online docs that state: It is possible to use > > > just one of the graphs from the dataset. A common way of working with > > > one graph is to use the default graph of the dataset. > > > > > > Dataset dataset = DatasetFactory.createMem() ; > > Dataset tdb = TDBFactory.createDataset() ; > > > > // Pick one graph/model out of the dataset. > > Model m1 = tdb.getNamedModel("http://example/tdb/graph";) ; > > dataset.addNamedModel("http://example/individuals";, m1) ; > > > > // A model with completely different storage > > Model m2 = ModelFactory.createDefaultModel() ; > > dataset.addNamedModel("http://example/ontology";, m2) ; > > > > ... a dataset with a mix of model storage implementations. > > > > > > > > My code uses the interface com.hp.hpl.jena.query.Dataset. It allows me > > > to start/stop transactions and to access named models. I can access > > > multiple named models. Isn't a model a graph in the database? > > > Isn't a graph == model == graph ? You say that "transactions will not > > > work across a mixture of graphs in a dataset". So a given > > > com.hp.hpl.jena.query.Dataset object, while it can return multiple > > > named Models, you cannot use them in the same transaction? > > > > then > > > > dataset.begin(ReadWrite.READ) ; > > > > ==> exception. "Transactions not supported" > > > > > When you said "a general dataset", are you referring to the default > > > model/graph, which is stored in a triple table in SDB and essentially > > > is using the single default graph managed by TDB/SDB? > > > > The kind of dataset returned by DatasetFactory.createMem() > > > > > Some of the wording used, both in the documentation and in your reply, > > > seem vague to me, with multiple interpretations. I don't believe the > > > single sentence "It is possible to use just one of the graphs from the > > > dataset." is true. > > > > Could you suggest improvements? > > > > Andy > > >
