Hi, why not just use an external Jena-compatible library for OWL2 support. I used Openllet[1] (a Pellet fork) with very good results. It does even support SWRL reasoning.It's very easy to set it up to work with Jena. The only issue with might be the AGPL license which might be not appropriate for commercial use.
Cheers, Piotr [1]https://github.com/Galigator/openllet śr., 23 paź 2019 o 22:05 Claude Warren <cla...@xenei.com> napisał(a): > OK. I finally had a few minutes to look at this code. > > I agree that supporting OWL2 would be nice. > > There seems to be a lot here. (I have not read through it all and > therefore do not have a full understanding of the contribution) I too am > concerned about having enough developers that understand the code to be > able to support it. But as more people use it more will achieve the level > of competence necessary to support it. I believe that will come with time > and as I recall we have had questions about OWL2 support so I suspect there > is a population of developers that will contribute and support. > > I am concerned about possible code duplication. For example there is a > UnionGraph class in the contribution, how does this differ from the > existing Union class? > > My other concern is the impact on the permissions layer. This is a new > Model type and the permissions layer does not directly support it. There > are additional classes like OntList that should be wrapped. This might be > an opportunity to revisit the Permissions layer and determine if there is a > better implementation strategy. On the other hand, I don't have the time > to do a full revisit. I could, however, work with ss zuev to ensure that > the permissions layer provides support for the new Ontology classes. > > I know we normally vote +1, -1 or 0 but in this case I am > > +0.5 because I am not certain of the level of support available for the > code being contributed. > > If there is more support from other PMC members I could be convinced to > change to +1 > > On a side topic, do we have a documented procedure for accepting > contributions? I don't recall what I did for the Permissions layer and I > know there have been several contributions since then. > > Claude > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:03 PM ss zuev <sss.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> PMC and community - your thoughts. > > > Not sure what does it mean, but it doesn't look like important. > > > > I apologize, just misunderstood this. > > Well, If the PMC and community decide that this feature is good to be > > included as a Jena part, then, I think, the discussion can be moved to > > Jira. > > It is not an urgent question. > > Thank you for your time. > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 8:44 PM ss zuev <sss.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > PMC and community - your thoughts. > > > > > > Not sure what does it mean, but it doesn't look like important. > > > > > > The new home for ONT-API is the owlcs group, it is discussed [here]( > > > https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi/issues/889). > > > The relationship between ONT-API and OWL-API is described in the > > README.md > > > of ONT-API. > > > The question was not about moving the whole project, but only part of > it > > > (OntGraphModel), sorry if I didn’t put it clearly enough. > > > It is the package 'com.github.owlcs.ontapi.jena' (the former > > > 'ru.avicomp.ontapi.jena') and the main class is 'OntGraphModel'. > > > All the rest parts of API are definitely not suitable to be moved into > > > Jena. > > > But this one - is a classic Jena Model, small enough, and I thought it > > > would be quite convenient for people who are used to the 'OntModel'. > > > Although it is not 'InfModel', it has rich functionality to work with > all > > > OWL2 things, which is what many people want. > > > In the page https://jena.apache.org/documentation/ontology/ there are > > > words about OWL1.1: "We will be addressing this in future versions > Jena." > > > so I thought OntGraphModel could be a good start to such support. > > > > > > "Copyright (c), The University of Manchester, owl.cs group." is a > header, > > > that I set a few days ago. > > > Instead of old one, since now the project home is owlcs. I can't see > any > > > problem here, it seemed to me a pretty good header. > > > And, of course, I didn't mean the moving everything as it is: this was > a > > > question, while moving the header would be changed to apache license, > and > > > classes/packages would be renamed. Sorry if this was unclear. > > > > > > > the provenance is unclear. > > > > > > Well, the whole provenance is definitely in the git history, no any > other > > > places exist. > > > Maybe it is unclear due to the moving - this operation is not directly > > > supported by the git itself, although some tools can glue the commit > > > history after moving. > > > > > > > So an important question is whether, from the wider Jena community, > > > there are people sufficiently interested to take this forward. > > > > > > Well, I can support this model, but in this case, I tend to think it is > > > better to leave the 'OntGraphModel' as a part of ONT-API (i.e. within > its > > > new home - owlcs). > > > > > > So, the question, I think, can be closed. Thank you for your time. > > > > > > > > > On 2019/10/18 10:29:03, ss zuev <sss.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, everyone. > > > > This is the question. > > > > > > > > There is a project [ONT-API](https://github.com/avicomp/ont-api), > > which > > > is > > > > a jena-based OWL-API implementation. > > > > It includes Ontology RDF Model, > > > > [ru.avicomp.ontapi.jena.model.OntGraphModel]( > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/avicomp/ont-api/blob/master/src/main/java/ru/avicomp/ontapi/jena/model/OntGraphModel.java > > > ), > > > > > > > > that is an analogue of org.apache.jena.ontology.OntModel but for OWL2 > > > > semantic. > > > > > > > > Currently I can't continue with domain avicomp, and, therefore,I'd > like > > > to > > > > move somewhere the whole project or some its part. > > > > I think the OntGraphModel as a feature could be very convenient for > > Jena > > > > users. > > > > > > > > Few additional notes: > > > > ONT-API has direct tests for only this model (package > > > > ru.avicomp.ontapi.tests.jena), > > > > and total number of testcases (which might be considered as indirect > > > tests) > > > > is about 5500 (many of them were taken from OWL-API). > > > > It also has benchmarks and memmarks (but not for `OntGraphModel`). > > > > Also it has javadocs and usages: (my) ONT-D2RQ, ONT-MAP projects, and > > > > protege-like system (yet not in github), many other users also use > > > ONT-API > > > > somehow. > > > > > > > > Obviously, the possible moving would mean total refactoring : > changing > > > > namespaces and class names, fix docs, maybe moving methods, etc. > > > > > > > > What do you think about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web > <http://like-like.xenei.com> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren >
