- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:37:18 +0200
- To: "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>
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 hierarchies >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 possible 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 many 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. Cheers, Michael [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 Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 17:37:43 UTC