Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] Big performance difference with SWRL when resolving OWL imports

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Wed Dec 12 12:26:51 PST 2007


Serge,

I've reposted your question on the Protege-OWL mailing list. Please post 
in future OWL related on the Protege-OWL mailing list.

Thanks,
Tania


Serge Libotte wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I was using 3.4. I know it's not USING the rules (this is why I used 
> Java code to make the test) but I needed an editor.
>
> Can someone show me what to change in the source in order to use an 
> OWL atom list in place of the RDF flavor?
>
> Regards,
>
> Serge.
>
>
> 2007/12/12, Tania Tudorache <tudorache at stanford.edu 
> <mailto:tudorache at stanford.edu>>:
>
>     Serge,
>
>     This is the wrong list to post a Protege-OWL related question. Please
>     use in future the protege-owl mailing list.
>
>     I also wonder what Protege version did you use to do the tests?
>     Protege
>     3 or Protege 4?
>
>     The latest beta of Protege 3.4 does not use the SWRL rules for the
>     reasoning. We hope to have this available very soon.
>
>     The reason why SWRLTab breaks with dl-safe.owl is that the file
>     does not
>     follow the SWRL specification when building the atom lists: it
>     uses rdf
>     lists instead of atom lists. If you have more questions about this,
>     please post them on the Protege-OWL mailing list.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Tania
>
>
>
>     Serge Libotte wrote:
>     > Funny, I just tried this.
>     > The perf is globally a bit better:
>     >
>     > StopWatch '': running time (millis) = 1562
>     > -----------------------------------------
>     > ms     %     Task name
>     > -----------------------------------------
>     > 01078  069%  Owl Loading
>     > 00000  000%  get order1
>     > 00000  000%  get hasPart
>     > 00297  019%  get needs
>     > 00187  012%  get NeededRes
>     >
>     > On the top of that, Protégé doesn't complain about anything (which
>     > sounds normal to me since any specific XML editor is supposed to
>     know
>     > the NS it should manipulate)
>     >
>     > I wonder why Protégé breaks in opening the SWRL tab with
>     > http://owldl.com/ontologies/dl-safe.owl
>     >
>     > 2007/12/7, raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be
>     <mailto:raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be>
>     > <mailto: raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be
>     <mailto:raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be>>
>     > <raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be
>     <mailto:raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be>
>     <mailto:raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be
>     <mailto:raphael.coulonvaux at belgacom.be>>>:
>     >
>     >     Suppress the include.
>     >
>     >
>     >    
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     *From:* pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com>
>     >     <mailto:pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com>>
>     >     [mailto: pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com>
>     >     <mailto:pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:pellet-users-bounces at lists.owldl.com>>] *On Behalf Of
>     >     *Serge Libotte
>     >     *Sent:* 07 December 2007 10:29
>     >     *To:* pellet-users at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:pellet-users at lists.owldl.com>
>     >     <mailto:pellet-users at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:pellet-users at lists.owldl.com>>
>     >     *Subject:* [Pellet-users] Big performance difference with SWRL
>     >     when resolvingOWL imports
>     >
>     >     Dears,
>     >
>     >     I've made a very small ontology using Protégé. (see attached)
>     >     In it, I've defined two rules.
>     >     When doing that, Protégé wants to import some other namespaces
>     >     definitions, as you know.
>     >
>     >     Then I wrote a simple java code to test expected results and
>     they
>     >     are as expected. Nice!
>     >
>     >     owl loaded...
>     >     Order_1 has hasPart(s):Spec_1, CFS_1, Offer_1
>     >     Order_1 has needs(s):Res_1
>     >     NeededRes instances: Res_1
>     >
>     >
>     >     But...
>     >
>     >     The application throws a lot of messages telling it cannot parse
>     >     the imported owl (normal since I prevent it to access the
>     internet)
>     >     I then copied the imported owl locally and added some
>     >     SimpleURIMapper to resolve NS to those one.
>     >
>     >     The results are the same but the performance is bad: it takes 10
>     >     times longer to retreive result of the rules (see below)
>     >
>     >     StopWatch 'no mappers': running time (millis) = 1890
>     >     -----------------------------------------
>     >     ms     %     Task name
>     >     -----------------------------------------
>     >     01359  072%  Owl Loading
>     >     00000  000%  get order1
>     >     00000  000%  get hasPart
>     >     00328  017%  get needs
>     >     00203  011%  get NeededRes
>     >
>     >     StopWatch 'with mappers': running time (millis) = 16812
>     >     -----------------------------------------
>     >     ms     %     Task name
>     >     -----------------------------------------
>     >     01156  007%  Owl Loading
>     >     00000  000%  get order1
>     >     00000  000%  get hasPart
>     >     08422  050%  get needs
>     >     07234  043%  get NeededRes
>     >
>     >     Since results are the same I wonder:
>     >     1) is it necessary to import those NS?
>     >     2) how to work in Protégé without all those imports?
>     >     3) How to keep imports and avoid error messages while
>     keeping good
>     >     performances?
>     >     4) What makes the rules going so slow (ontology size?)
>     >
>     >     Thanks for helping,
>     >
>     >     Serge.
>     >
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Pellet-users mailing list
>     >     Pellet-users at lists.owldl.com
>     <mailto:Pellet-users at lists.owldl.com> <mailto:
>     Pellet-users at lists.owldl.com <mailto:Pellet-users at lists.owldl.com>>
>     >     http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >
>     >     Sponsored by Clark & Parsia, LLC http://clarkparsia.com/
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > protege-discussion mailing list
>     > protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>     <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>     > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>     >
>     > Instructions for unsubscribing:
>     http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>     <http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03>
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     protege-discussion mailing list
>     protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>     <mailto:protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>     Instructions for unsubscribing:
>     http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
>   




More information about the protege-discussion mailing list