I create an ontology using Protégé 3.4.8 and also i create some SWRL rules.
Now i'am using Jena API to manipulate the ontology and i use the reasoner
Pellet in order to support this rules.
For example, one of my a rule said :
person(x) and hasAge (x,y) and Age(y) and greaterThan (y,16) and
lessThan
On 21/04/14 23:29, Shijie Jin -X (shijjin - AAP3 INC at Cisco) wrote:
Hi All,
I’m working on a new project with Jena framework. The problem is, I want to use
D2RQ as my library to export the RDB data into TDB, however, the D2RQ uses an
old version Jena framework which incompatible with the new
Hi All,
I’m working on a new project with Jena framework. The problem is, I want to use
D2RQ as my library to export the RDB data into TDB, however, the D2RQ uses an
old version Jena framework which incompatible with the newest version Jena. I
can’t use two versions of Jena simultaneously. Any
Andy and Dave,
Okay, that helped a lot. There is a place in my model creation code that
invoked OntModel.createOntology with an empty string for the URI. I changed it
to be the same URI as the Individual the model represents. (In my abbreviated
sample RDF that Individual is "http://anchor/plan#
On 21/04/14 21:57, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 21/04/14 21:21, Tim Harsch wrote:
Hmmm... it seems then that this test poses some challenge for
implementors
because how can you go both choose to return anything, and pass the test?
EricP did a comprehensive job of annotating the tests with the assu
On 21/04/14 21:21, Tim Harsch wrote:
Hmmm... it seems then that this test poses some challenge for implementors
because how can you go both choose to return anything, and pass the test?
EricP did a comprehensive job of annotating the tests with the
assumptions.
This goes back to SPARQL 1.0.
Andy, was ARQ's run of the DAWG tests done with global strict mode on?
That would explain it...
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> +1 to Paul.
>
> You can turn on global strict mode and it won't overload ?x + ?y in this
> way. You'll get an error and so ?sum is undefined.
Hmmm... it seems then that this test poses some challenge for implementors
because how can you go both choose to return anything, and pass the test?
I guess if you want to extend the semantics in the places where you can,
you just have to accept that you can't pass the DAWG tests 100%.
But, I'm f
On 21/04/14 19:39, Lebling, David (US SSA) wrote:
However, in this case I'm not the one who is converting a model to a payload;
it's something underneath Fuseki's DatasetAccessor.
The data going in to putModel() has a bad URI - the "" URI.
> This:
> [, http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#imports, h
+1 to Paul.
You can turn on global strict mode and it won't overload ?x + ?y in this
way. You'll get an error and so ?sum is undefined.
You can't set strict mode on expression evauation per execution. The
expression evaluator does not know the context.
There is never an implicit cast. Th
On 21/04/14 19:39, Lebling, David (US SSA) wrote:
When I write to a text file, I supply a base URI. I call RDFWriter.write(Model m, OutputStream os, String baseUri). The RDF
statements (in XML_ABBREV format) about the ontology in that case do have 'rdf:about=""' as the subject. When you talk
ab
This is an ARQ extension to SPARQL. The expression (?x + ?y AS ?sum) is
only defined for numbers, meaning that it is undefined for string values,
even if they can be converted. If a result is "undefined" then it can be
returned as anything.
Someone thought that it would be a good idea to have + du
correction: building from source, with Java 6. I'm guessing byte code
compatibility of the different versions is the same.
On , Tim Harsch wrote:
>Rob,
>
>> and so a workaround after Java 6 support is dropped will be to build from
>> source yourself.
>
>
> I don't think that once support
Rob,
> and so a workaround after Java 6 support is dropped will be to build from
> source yourself.
I don't think that once support is dropped, you can build from source for
long. If Jena project makes use of a new language feature, or library included
in Java 7 or Java 8, running Jena wit
When I write to a text file, I supply a base URI. I call RDFWriter.write(Model
m, OutputStream os, String baseUri). The RDF statements (in XML_ABBREV format)
about the ontology in that case do have 'rdf:about=""' as the subject. When you
talk about "<>" do you mean that "<>" should be there inst
On 21/04/14 17:09, Lebling, David (US SSA) wrote:
I'm attempting to write a new graph into my TDB repository. The graph has the name of the
instance it represents, in this case, "http://anchor/plan#Graph1";.
Deep below DatasetAccessor.putModel(), I get the following error:
com.hp.hpl.jena.shar
Hi,
I've been trying to figure out an issue with addition of strings in
SPARQL. According to the DAWG evaluation test at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/summary.html#functions-plus-1
"1" + "2" != "12", but ARQ run via Fuseki-1.0.1 would seem to disagree. I
also tried running the followi
>I can't tell without more information, ideally something that can be run and
>also a stacktrace.
A runnable example will take some work. I can give you a stack trace easily
enough:
-
com.hp.hpl.jena.shared.BadURIException: Only well-formed absolute URIrefs can
be included in RDF/XML outp
On 21/04/14 17:09, Lebling, David (US SSA) wrote:
I'm attempting to write a new graph into my TDB repository. The
graph
has the name of the instance it represents, in this case,
"http://anchor/plan#Graph1";.
Deep below DatasetAccessor.putModel(), I get the following error:
com.hp.hpl.jena.sha
I'm attempting to write a new graph into my TDB repository. The graph has the
name of the instance it represents, in this case, "http://anchor/plan#Graph1";.
Deep below DatasetAccessor.putModel(), I get the following error:
com.hp.hpl.jena.shared.BadURIException: Only well-formed absolute URIref
On 21 Apr 2014, at 14:01, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing in what ways the problem is different from SQL.
>
> Also - in SQL, there is LIKE. Would it be a good idea for SPARQL to have a
> separate "LIKE"
SPARQL 1.1 is good in addressing this. There are now three new functio
On 21/04/14 12:23, Saud Al-Jaloud wrote:
Just use current releases.
We are using current releases, we are not looking for tuning systems
but rather the right configs as this is some sort of an extension.
Otherwise, some might argue that we were unfair/miss features for
some stores over others.
> Just use current releases.
We are using current releases, we are not looking for tuning systems but rather
the right configs as this is some sort of an extension. Otherwise, some might
argue that we were unfair/miss features for some stores over others. For
example, buffer size or the way of
On 20/04/14 17:13, Saud Aljaloud wrote:
Thanks Paul and Andy,
Why are you suggesting non-public?
The idea is that because we are benchmarking a number of triple
stores, and our choice is to ask each of them about the best
configurations privately for their own store, we want to reduce the
amou
24 matches
Mail list logo
