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-owl] Best of Breed OWL API

babar shahzad babarathotmail at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 27 13:34:26 PDT 2009



Can anyone refer some frame work for ontology that uses SQWRL to query ontology & have some good documentation & example.

thank you for any kind of help in advance.


 
Babar Shahzad Chaudary, 
+358408532112         
Deptt of Information Processing
Science,
University of Oulu, Finland.



----- Original Message ----
From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:37:31 PM
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Best of Breed OWL API


One thing that is not mentioned is the type of ontology that you are  
interested in working with.  If you are largely working with OWL  
ontologies then there are other options to consider.  This question is  
pretty much a faq and I have answered this type of question before [1].

-Timothy

[1[ https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2009-February/009777.html

On Mar 25, 2009, at 5:45 AM, Nick Khamis wrote:

>
>
> Forwarded conversation
> Subject: Best of Breed OWL API
> ------------------------
>
> From: Nick Khamis <symack at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:13 PM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com, GATE ML <gate-users at lists.sourceforge.net 
> >
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> We are currently considering one of the following (jena.jar,  
> gate.jar, protege.jar) libraries to assist in CRUD (Create, Read,  
> Update, Delete) operations of ontologies. We will be using triple  
> stores such as (jenadb, sdb, rdfcrm). I am trying to learn from your  
> experiences regarding this issue and what  your advice (pros and  
> cons) is in terms of using the listed libraries. We are also open to  
> recommendations of other APIs that I have not listed.
>
> Regards,
> Ninus.
>
> ----------
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy at topquadrant.com>
> Date: Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com, GATE ML <gate-users at lists.sourceforge.net 
> >
>
>
>
> Please clarify: CRUD operations for
>
> -          ontologies
>
> -          triples in ontologies expressed in RDF
>
> -          or something else? (e.g. axioms in ontologies, or  
> individuals in say an OWL Ontology)
>
>
>
> Concerning Jena, when I worked on that project, the belief was that  
> the typical life cycle had
>
>    Create + Update operations, followed by Read operations
>
> and we tended to design with that in mind, while supporting CRUD in  
> any order. i.e. we believed Jena was being used more for analysis  
> type applications than OLTP type applications.
>
>
> Of course, I don’t know any better than anyone else (not in the Jena  
> team) what the current design goals are.
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
> From: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com [mailto:topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com 
> ] On Behalf Of Nick Khamis
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:14 PM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com; GATE ML
> Subject: [tbc-users] Best of Breed OWL API
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to topbraid-composer-users+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
> ----------
> From: Atanas Kiryakov <naso at sirma.bg>
> Date: Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:10 AM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com, GATE ML <gate-users at lists.sourceforge.net 
> >, Hamish Cunningham <hamish at dcs.shef.ac.uk>, Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman at aduna-software.com 
> >
>
>
> Dear Nick,
>
> what you refer as "GATE OWL API" is probably the API of Sesame 1.2.  
> Actually GATE integrates SwiftOWLIM 2.9.1 as part of its standard  
> distribution (the same holds for TBC, as far as I know). OWLIM in  
> general provides storage and reasoning backend through the Sesame APIs
>
> Speaking of APIs, Sesame's main APIs allow manipulation of RDF  
> store. One can CRD RDF triples (updating RDF triple is a non-sense).  
> Thus you can assert:
>
>     C1 rdfs:subClassOf C2
>
> or delete this statement or ask for any statements paterns (e.g. C1  
> rdfs:subClassOf ?x). And evaluate queries, of course. This is  
> obviously a low-level RDF API, that is designed for maximum  
> efficiency when it comes to moving around large volumes of data in  
> RDF (plenty of public benchmark results prove it is the best for  
> this).
>
> If you want to use OO-style API, where you deal with classes and  
> objects (instead of triples), you can look at the Graph API of  
> Sesame (www.openrdf.org) and Elmo. There is also a simple OO-style  
> API as part of GATE
>
> Finally, there are APIs which allow one to deal with OWL definitions  
> and primitives (e.g. having specific programmatic support for  
> owl:minCardinality), e.g. http://owlapi.sourceforge.net/. It's my  
> personal opinoin that most of the users and applications (other than  
> ontology enditors) usually do not need such APIs - people edit  
> ontologies in editors as TBC, then only load them programatically  
> (as RDF files) into repositories such as Sesame. Of course, there  
> are plenty of different ways to get the same job done, depending on  
> your application and environment.
>
> Regards,
> Naso
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Atanas Kiryakov
> CEO of Ontotext AD, http://www.ontotext.com
> Sirma Group Corp, http://www.sirma.bg
> Phone: (+359 2) 8091 555; Fax: 8090 404
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------
> From: Nick Khamis <symack at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:34 AM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hey Jeremy,
>
> Thanks you so much for you response... We are going to be working  
> with OWL Ontologies with axioms, individuals, and reasoning using  
> OWL-DL Tableau Reasoners. I have been using TBC for over a year now  
> and I love it... I never looked into whether or not TBC has an API  
> that we can use for the said operations? If so how complete is it.
>
> Regards,
> Ninus
>
> ----------
> From: Nick Khamis <symack at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:11 AM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hey Atanas,
>
> Thank you so much for your response. Basically we are looking to  
> implement an application that automatedly generates OWL-DL  
> Ontologies that have axioms, individuals and also make use a tableau  
> reasoner, as well as store them in a repository. That being said I  
> understand that SwiftOWLIM is one of the fastest reasoners out  
> there, however; as you know it is not a full OWL-DL tableau reasoner  
> and cannot deduce things such as disjointness. That being said we  
> are looking for an OWL API (OO Style would be nice) that is complete  
> in the sense that it will allow for the CRD of "complete" OWL-DL  
> KBs. I think "The OWL API at http://owlapi.sourceforge.net/" is just  
> what the doctor ordered, has anyone here used the API is it any good  
> (easy to use, somewhat complete, well documented, supported)?
>
> Best Regards,
> Ninus.
>
> ----------
> From: Nick Khamis <symack at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hey Jeremy,
>
> We are also looking to generate in an automated manner the complete  
> DL Ontology (Concepts, Individuals, Properties etc..), and also make  
> use of a tableau reasoner.
>
> ----------
> From: Atanas Kiryakov <naso at sirma.bg>
> Date: Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:54 PM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hi Nick
>
> if you *really* need DL reasoning SwiftOWLIM and Sesame's APIs are  
> not for you. I am emphasizing *really* because there are plenty of  
> people who chose DL being influenced by something and afterwards get  
> surprised by the specific constraints that it requires
>
> As a general comment, the completeness of the reasoning is not  
> determined by the API (i.e. the interface definitions), but rather  
> from the implementation that you will choose. For instance, one can  
> provide results of a sound and complete inference through Sesame's  
> interfaces (OWLIM could have been doing this, if it was a tableau  
> reasoner) and another one could provide shallow or incomplete  
> inference through DIG (yo u have to look at this, if you are into DL  
> reasoning)
>
> ----------
> From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther at melandra.com>
> Date: Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM
> To: GATE ML <gate-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
>
>
> > From: Atanas Kiryakov [naso at sirma.bg]
> Others of us have different opinions, and regard RDF-level APIs as  
> shockingly low-level and OWL APIs as "about right" :-).  But then,  
> I'm from the description logic side of the world and would have  
> preferred OWL to be a set of XML extensions to RDF rather than an  
> interpretation of particular RDF triples.
>
> As Antanas says, there are plenty of different ways to get the same  
> job done!
>
> - Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM)  
> are
> powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly  
> and
> easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based  
> development
> software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
> Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
> _______________________________________________
> GATE-users mailing list
> GATE-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gate-users
>
> ----------
> From: Scott Henninger <shenninger at topquadrant.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:03 PM
> To: TopBraid Composer Users <topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> Nick;  In terms of access to TBC functionality, TopBraid supports a
> couple of way to get to Composer/Live functionality.  Probably the
> most relevant in your case is SPARQLMotion (http:// 
> www.topquadrant.com/
> sparqlmotion/).  This has modules for reasoners, SPARQL queries,
> import/export formats, etc.  The scripts can be exposed as REST Web
> Services.
>
> The implication is that SPARQLMotion has access to a large set of
> Composer features and you can access this from the outside world by
> creating a script, exposing the script as a Web service, and storing
> it on TopBraid Live.  This is quite powerful, as you can design a
> series of ontology manipulations using a graphical language and access
> this via a simple Web service call.  In many ways, the API is yours to
> design.
>
> Ensemble also provides access to Composer features via a configurable
> Web application.
>
> -- Scott
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Jeremy Carroll  
> <jer... at topquadrant.com>wrote:
>
> ----------
> From: Nick Khamis <symack at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:36 AM
> To: topbraid-composer-users at googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> So just to wrap up this thread, and this information may be useful  
> for others...
>
> When talking about creating an OWL-DL ontology editing application  
> using java code and an Ontology API to help do so we have:
>
> Name                                    
> Link                                                           Desc
> The OWL API                        http:// 
> owlapi.sourceforge.net/.                    OO Style OWL-DL API
> Jena                                    http://jena.sourceforge.net/
>
> Jeremy you brought up the comment that Jena was designed more for  
> analysis type applications as opposed to ontology editing  
> applications. From the little that I have experimented (jena java  
> code examples) I saw that Jena could be a good candidate for use as  
> an API for an ontology editing application? I put a question mark  
> because I would like your expert elaboration on this please.
>
> We also have a different option as brought up by Scott. Using TBC's  
> API to edit ontologies using SPARQLMotion and web services  
> (interesting take).
>
> We talked a little about how to integrate the reasoning services,  
> into an ontology editing application... Atanas mentioned DIG and  
> also pointed out how we could have "shallow" inferencing when using  
> DIG. I did experiment and read up on DIG and also agree that is not  
> a good idea, furthermore; the ontology editing application will  
> reside on the same server as the reasoner making less need for using  
> DIG.... That being said what are your takes on how to integrate  
> reasoning services using java code and (new topic :) a "Reasoning  
> Services API".
> If I remember correctly TBC uses DIG for pellet and other reasoners  
> that we may want to add, the new version of Protege stopped using  
> DIG for reasoning services the last time I looked.
>
> I would like to thank everyone in advanced for your expertise and  
> input,
>
> Regards,
> Ninus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 



      



More information about the protege-owl mailing list