Re: OWL ontology database

Please use cc not bcc ---


> we are very much interested in the second option   is it wise to use mirror
> of ontology database as a relation database?


You mean mirror the triple store into a relational db?
If this is what you mean you must be assuming that querying the RDB would be
quicker?
If you can analyse your data representation needs and factor writes into the
RDB with its schema specialised for your clients such that reads are less
expensive, then yes. In other words is there something you know about your
clients that can be reflected in that schema?
But is your data needs to be repeatedly dynamically re-described to
accommodate your different clients then I think this is where OWL and e.g.
SPARQL should be used.

 how can owL Ontology database be efficient than a relational one
> considering that we will need to query a lot of external databases like
> dbpedia,freebase etc?
>

This is populating your store. Non-rdf/owl sources. You have the problem of
lift. Dynamic or slow moving? Slow moving and the problem seems doable and,
perhaps, worthwhile for the flexibility mentioned above. Dynamic and it is
another problem domain involving a lot more expense.
I would be interested in what you think about this?


> for the second option,  ontological databases requires us to make a query
> against hundreds of different schemata and classes properties which seems to
> be a costly affair.

Yes it is, even if some/all is in rdf/owl - and, so I understand, must be in
memory.

> And is it a wise decision to go for a complete ontological database for a
> social networking website ?

That's your experiment. But usually no SQL DBs are used/considered and here
you have greater flexibility, for instance you may use a graph database
which can be combined with OWL (can ingest OWL schemata) and reason against
that as needed.


> The project is involves sharing of lot of small chunks of information
> across an array of distributed users building a personalized model of the
> user.
>
I think that the merit of OWL is that categories can be looked before hand
and, to a less extent, modified on further use. The categories should come
from experts on the data user side. They are about what you want to know. Of
course, when something is known, categorised, it can be shared with the data
originators and this form a feed back loop. But the main thing is in the
relationship between these categories and the reasoning (which is light
weight, no data attached) over them.

Good luck,

Adam

On 18 June 2011 08:04, Aliabbas Petiwala <aliabbasjp@gmail.com> wrote:

> we are looking forward to make an OWL ontology database as a mirror of a
> relational database for an upcoming social network semantic website is it a
> good decision to make?
>
> actually we can go for three options:
>
> 1. complete owl database, no relational db
> 2. owl mirror of relational db
> 3. only relational
>
> we are very much interested in the second option   is it wise to use mirror
> of ontology database as a relation database? how can owL Ontology database
> be efficient than a relational one considering that we will need to query a
> lot of external databases like dbpedia,freebase etc?
>
> for the second option,  ontological databases requires us to make a query
> against hundreds of different schemata and classes properties which seems to
> be a costly affair. And is it a wise decision to go for a complete
> ontological database for a social networking website ? The project is
> involves sharing of lot of small chunks of information across an array of
> distributed users building a personalized model of the user.
>
> ontotext, http://www.systap.com,http://www.opencalais.com/ provides a
> solution for semantic repositories , its really difficult to determine which
> is the best option for a STARTUP like us and we can't go in for these
> expensive paid consultations. so what are the options and solutions
> availaible for us?
>
>
>