- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:32:52 +0000
- To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi Leo, OK. I understand about commercial sensitivity, though an abstracted data example might still be possible. There are a few coding approaches that could make a difference to performance of that sort of algorithm. Rather than spam this list with jena-specific details I'll take the rest of the discussion off list (and copy to jena-dev). Cheers, Dave Leo Sauermann wrote: > Hi Dave, > > actually a colleague of me is doing it and it is a commercial project we > do for a telecommunications company, so we can't publish the triples :-| > > roughly, its about checking if two graph A, B are "near" to each other, > A,B describe resources and the resources are of Schema S > now what we do is complete A and B by using S and then doing some graph > matching algorithm combined with property matching, > so we combine A with S and B with S and then use A(S) and B(S) to do the > matching. > > like > if type(A(S)) == type(B(S)) then "quite match" > and forallPropertiesOf( prop(A(S)) == prop(B(S))) then add "quite match" > ... > > so there are a few find(spo) that fire into the graph which the graph > does not like > > we'll try the new Jena release and see what happens. > > regards > Leo > > Es begab sich aber zu der Zeit 21.03.2005 12:16, da Dave Reynolds schrieb: > >> >> Hi Leo, >> >>> The problem with Jena is: the Model RDFS_MEM_TRANS_INF is too slow to do >>> simple inference (and it was the fastest we found in jena) >> >> >> >> Which version of Jena? There was a bug fix affecting TRANS between 2.1 >> and 2.2beta1 and a performance problem fixed between 2.2beta1 and >> 2.2beta2. >> >>> It has 200ms performance of matching two small rdf instance models >>> against a RDF/S ontology model (180 classes). >> >> >> >> What do you mean by "matching" a model against an RDFS model? >> >> If you can show us what you are doing (ideally a self-contained code >> example) then we might be able to advise on optimizations. Though code >> exchange is probably better done over on jena-dev or off list. >> >>> We did everything we could to make it faster, including prefetching all >>> classes, properties, trying out different Jena inferencers, etc. >> >> >> >> If you prefetched all classes and properties then there is presumably >> no inference left. If the performance wasn't good enough in that set >> up then you don't need faster inference you need a faster algorithm or >> reduced API overheads. That would make it even more interesting to see >> exactly what you are doing to figure where the performance problem is. >> >> Cheers, >> Dave >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 17:33:25 UTC