hi, Ivan,
thanks a lot ..
to the logging inconsistencies stuff: I'm forcing OWLIM to assert as a
rule some conclusion e.g. rdf:type not:existing which is not in the schema
(cause I don't use (ups, accidentaly :) ) any schema for this nasty
experiments :) ) .. but only log, which can be related to the
inconsistency is just something like:
Note: sun.tools.javac.Main has been deprecated.
1 warning
pack + className:com.ontotext.trree.Rules_2HashInferencer_605577
Rule set compiled.
but I guess thats not it .. so, pls, how can I get the logs? .. I'm using
BigOWLIM 3.2.a7
btw: are there some consistency checks for triples which don't match any
allready existing schema (I mean to be really consistent)?
I have one more question regarding inference machine of BigOWLIM:
pls, how does it work? .. which inferences (I mean inferred assertions)
are done on-the-fly and which are generated when loading the data? ..
cases, which I have on my mind at this very moment: now I know, that rules
generate assertions, when data are inserted .. but, how is it with the
schema? .. when I load some data into repository without schema, then I
shut down repo, then init and add only schema, inferences throught e.g.
rdf:type are done on the fly (using SPARQL - asking on generic rdf:type)
.. so, pls, can you give a short overview of inferencing machine of
BigOWLIM? .. just to know, what and how to use ..
thanks a lot, cheers,
Peter K.
> On the consistency issues -- we do have a mechanism for logging
> inconsistencies according to some rules, defined in the custom ruleset.
> However it only logs inconsistencies on the standard output (or some
> predefined java PrintStream). It currently doesn't prevent them from
> entering
> the repository. If such a mechanism would work for you -- let me know (you
> will need a 3.2.x BigOWLIM to have this working).
>
> About the Lucene and logging customization -- we're on it and we haven't
> forgotten you :) These are still in progress.
>
> As of OWLIM-as-a-server setup -- we are usually using Sesame server as
> well.
> One possible way of speeding up the communication to this server is to use
> the Sesame's own tuple result binary format
> (TupleQueryResultFormat.BINARY)
> as preferred tuple query result format of HTTPRepository. This
> significantly
> reduces the overhead of serializing/parsing the SPARQL query results.
> Hope this helps!
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
>
> On Wednesday 03 February 2010 12:49:28 Peter Kostelnik, PhD. wrote:
>> hi, Ivan,
>>
>> allright, thanks a lot..
>>
>> anyway, got some other questions :)
>>
>> .. the inferences defined in .pie rule sets are able to infer the new
>> assertions without any need of meta-data/schema .. is there some
>> validation mechanism, which can be used to hold the data consistent
>> against the schema?? .. now we can assert anything (having the schema or
>> not, OWLIM does not care)
>>
>> and .. some additional stuff (just pinging, as usual :) ):
>> how does it look with integration of lucene into BigOWLIM?
>> and, is there some possibility to redirect/customize the logiing of
>> BigOWLIM to some file or .. somewhere else than to standard E/O?
>>
>> and .. just being curious .. do you have some idea, how to make
>> communication with remote BigOWLIM faster (we are running it on sesame
>> server)? ..
>>
>> thanks in advance, cheers,
>> Peter K.
>>
>> > Hey Peter,
>> >
>> > On your questions:
>> >
>> > 1. Your rules should reside within a single .pie file or a single
>> > built-in ruleset. If you need to extend the owl-max or whichever
>> built-in
>> > ruleset, just copy the respective .pie file and extend/modify it as
>> you
>> > wish
>> >
>> > 2. Once loaded with some ruleset, your data will get enriched with the
>> > inferred closure of the loaded dataset (according to the ruleset).
>> > Changing
>> > the ruleset afterwards will only affect future inferences (this is a
>> side
>> > effect of the forward-chaining strategy used by Owlim). We are
>> thinking
>> > about
>> > building some mechanism able to reinfer the RDF closure at later
>> stage,
>> > but
>> > this is still being planned. Until we have it implemented, changing
>> the
>> > ruleset will require reloading of the repository data.
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ivan
>> >
>> > On Wednesday 03 February 2010 12:25:25 Peter Kostelnik, PhD. wrote:
>> >> hi there,
>> >>
>> >> I'm experimenting with custom .pie files in BigOWLIM and, amazingly,
>> the
>> >> few questions have arised :)
>> >>
>> >> so ..
>> >>
>> >> 1. is it possible to use more rules files? .. I mean, for example, to
>> >> use
>> >> owl-max rules and then, additionally, some custom rules in separate
>> file
>> >> (not to hold everything in one .pie file)
>> >>
>> >> 2. as there is no documentation available (or is it?), i've tried
>> this
>> >> setup: (a) loaded data into repository initialized with custom rule
>> set
>> >> and shutted down; (b) initialized repository with extended rule set
>> >> without loading data again .. in this case, the rules were compiled,
>> but
>> >> inferences defined in extended rules were not asserted .. so:
>> >> is there possibility, how to extend the rule set without reloading
>> whole
>> >> repository?
>> >>
>> >> thanks in advance,
>> >> Peter K.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OWLIM-discussion mailing list
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OWLIM-discussion mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
>
_______________________________________________
OWLIM-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
