On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:57 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Well, this is a conundrum. As you know, if anything is inconsistent
in DL, then everything logically follows.
In the base consequence relation, yes. But we can build things on top
of that.
What do you expect the behavior of the reasoner
On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think *if the ontology classifies reasonably at all*, then this
sort of query approach can achieve reasonable performance for this
rough application profile with a reasonable amount of engineering
effort in many cases.
Oh, but this is qu
Well, this is a conundrum. As you know, if anything is inconsistent
in DL, then everything logically follows.
What do you expect the behavior of the reasoner and the query engine
to be in such a case? Some sort of
bounds around inconsistencies? If so, how to set the bounds.
It's been my e
> In this case you need to make a choice about whether you want to
> say something that we called in [1] the 'statement level' or the
> 'domain level'. If at the domain level you need to put your neck on
> the line and say which experiment is right.
In many cases we cannot do that.
> If a
This is a debugging problem, but not a deployment problem. If one's
data is inconsistent one needs to fix it. Usually such
inconsistencies are either errors in the data that need to be fixed,
or indications that one needs to get clearer about what one wants to
say. In this case you need t
> I think *if the ontology classifies reasonably at all*, then this
> sort of query approach can achieve reasonable performance for this
> rough application profile with a reasonable amount of engineering
> effort in many cases.
Oh, but this is quite an important
We can expect that most of
On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:38 AM, Chris Mungall wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:49 AM, William Bug wrote:
I with Bijan on this issue.
However complex the current OWL representation may appear, it's
considerably more terse than the expression of this same info in a
relational model.
I'm not su
On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
e.g. for an ontology containing around 200.000 triples, would it
be possible to run a webserver that uses this approach to answer
concurrent queries of dozens of users without exce
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:49 AM, William Bug wrote:
I with Bijan on this issue.
However complex the current OWL representation may appear, it's
considerably more terse than the expression of this same info in a
relational model.
I'm not sure if this is necessarily the case. If we are talki
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the OWL property restrictions produce RDF
graphs that are quite convoluted and hard to query.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Hmm. Do you mean that the
OWL in RDF/XML syntax is rather convoluted?
No I meant the RDF triple structu
> >the OWL property restrictions produce RDF
> > graphs that are quite convoluted and hard to query.
>
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Hmm. Do you mean that the
> OWL in RDF/XML syntax is rather convoluted?
No I meant the RDF triple structure, independent of any syntax.
> Are
I with Bijan on this issue.
However complex the current OWL representation may appear, it's
considerably more terse than the expression of this same info in a
relational model. Yyou can write some very effective SPARQL queries
against it, after playing with it a bit to get a more complete
On Apr 17, 2007, at 3:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I am quite interested in your approach of making OWL property
restrictions accessible to Sparql queries.
In general, our demo contains several ontologies that are mainly
based on classes and OWL property restrictions. To query the
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Chris Mungall wrote:
Looking at "Creating class level relations for easier querying of
the GO"
The problem you are solving is the one of limited inferencing in
RDF engines; in particular, queries such as:
SELECT *
WHERE
{
?whole rdfs:subClassOf ?sub.
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:31:35 -0400
Von: Alan Ruttenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Betreff: Demo SPARQL notes
I've started a page where I and others can document some of the
SPARQL queries and techniques that are
Looking at "Creating class level relations for easier querying of the
GO"
The problem you are solving is the one of limited inferencing in RDF
engines; in particular, queries such as:
SELECT *
WHERE
{
?whole rdfs:subClassOf ?sub.
?sub rdf:type owl:Restriction.
?sub owl:onProper
Von: Alan Ruttenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Betreff: Demo SPARQL notes
>
> I've started a page where I and others can document some of the
> SPARQL queries and techniques that are being explored as we progress
> towards the demo.
> The
I've started a page where I and others can document some of the
SPARQL queries and techniques that are being explored as we progress
towards the demo.
The intention is to have a place to record things that are learned
for later reference.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/HCLSIG_Demo_QueryScra
Hi Alan,
Should I put some of the demo queries I've assembled for the Mouse
BIRN tests of some of the ABA Neurocommons repository up on this page?
Cheers,
Bill
On Apr 17, 2007, at 1:31 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I've started a page where I and others can document some of the
SPARQL quer
19 matches
Mail list logo
