- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:29:27 +0000
- To: jena-dev@yahoogroups.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Cc-ing webont Note: "Jeremy's jena.owlsyntax" is an "OWL Syntax Checker" Kaile said: > Managed to reduce simple query time from few minutes to .3 seconds > and without having to give the JVM any more memory too :))). Jeremy's > jena.owlsyntax really helped in tracing a lot of the ontology > definition problems. Ensuring the sub-language being Lite improved > the merger and query time without having to make any code changes. > (full context below) I found this very surprising - you're using a rulebase reasoner that has no particular preference or desire for OWL Lite input (well not in the strict sense - I believe we have better rules for the Lite vocab), and you report that even so, the OWL Lite definition is a useful guide to gaining better performance. I didn't expect that. Jeremy Context: ======== kailesmith wrote: > Hello Ian, > > --- In jena-dev@yahoogroups.com, "Dickinson, Ian J" > > There are three possibilities I can think of: > >>i) you have an awful lot of data. To test this, reduce the size of your >>input set and measure the effects >> >>ii) you have found a pathological case in interactions between >> > certain OWL > >>constructs and the Jena reasoner. To test this, simplify your ontology >>until the performance comes down to a reasonable level, then see >> > what you > >>just took out and post it here :-) >> >>iii) you are setting your models up in a non-conventional way, and >> > that is > >>exposing a bug, or at least an infelicity, in the Jena code. You >> > can test > >>this by posting your code here. You said in your introduction that >> > you had > >>"interesting times" trying to set up a model and perform a query. That >>suggests to me that you are doing something out of the ordinary, because >>setting up a simple test model and query is pretty straightforward >> > and not > >>interesting in that sense! >> > > Managed to reduce simple query time from few minutes to .3 seconds > and without having to give the JVM any more memory too :))). Jeremy's > jena.owlsyntax really helped in tracing a lot of the ontology > definition problems. Ensuring the sub-language being Lite improved > the merger and query time without having to make any code changes. > > Almost all the files are now Lite, except for two. One because I am > using unionOf (cannot avoid it) and the other is trying to put > restriction on sequence membership (I have started another thread on > that). > > regards > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > jena-dev-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 04:32:17 UTC