W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

RE: Is the ontology structure stored seamlessly with its data?

From: Luciano, Joanne S. <jluciano@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:54:21 -0400
Message-ID: <15980774D41B1A47A8D9DFF1452DF064014DCACF@IMCSRV3.MITRE.ORG>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, "Emanuele D'Arrigo" <manu3d@gmail.com>
Cc: "Semantic Web Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "public-owl-dev-request@w3.org" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Can anyone suggest a non-Jena / non-Java alternative?

And for RDF (without OWL) also?  


>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Schneider
>Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:37 PM
>To: Emanuele D'Arrigo
>Cc: Semantic Web Interest Group; public-owl-dev-request@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Is the ontology structure stored seamlessly with its
>Hi, Emanuele!
>Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote at September 26, 2007:
>>Another thing that is not quite clear in my mind right now is this:
>>are the sets of triplets describing the class and property
>>of an ontology normally stored seamlessly alongside the data that
>>is classified and characterized by those classes and properties?
>With OWL, for which an RDF mapping exists, this is technically
>without a problem. And when you, for instance, use JENA [1], a 
>well known
>RDF framework for Java, you generally /work/ with ontology 
>based knowledge
>bases in such a way (at least in principle). 
>With JENA, you typically build a view to your knowledge base in the
>following way:   
>  1) Create a so called "Model", which is empty at the beginning
>  2) Read into this Model the RDF statements representing the 
>axioms of your
>OWL ontology
>  3) Read into this Model the RDF statements of your knowledge base
>A "Model" in Jena represents an RDF graph, i.e. a set of RDF 
>triples. Now,
>as long as you use a pure "Model", this only gives you a view to the
>combined set of RDF triples, which come from both your OWL 
>ontology and your
>knowledge base. But if you instead use an "OntModel" (which stands for
>"Ontology Model"), you get an extended view to your RDF graph: 
>Suddenly, you
>have additional API functionality to access all your OWL classes and
>properties, and the (explicit) sub-relationships between them (and
>other ontology specific features). The magic behind this is that the
>OntModel internally separates out all those triple subsets within the
>combind RDF graph, which are RDF mappings for OWL axioms. 
>So this is the situation (or at least a possible and perfectly working
>situation), when you /work/ with knowledge data. This does 
>not, however,
>mean that you should also /store/ ontological and assertional 
>data together
>in the same RDF graph. I think, in most cases it will be a 
>better strategy
>to have them separately stored. Then, you can easily reuse the 
>ontology for
>different knowledge bases, and combine them /on the fly/, 
>whenever you want
>to work with them.
>[1] http://jena.sourceforge.net/ (JENA project page)
>Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
>FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
>Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
>Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
>Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
>Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
>Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
>Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
>Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
>Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
>Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi
>Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 16:54:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:59 UTC