Re: Inferencing by SPARQL

Not really. Only in source code, but this part is not open-source. It's a layer above Linked Data Templates: https://atomgraph.github.io/Linked-Data-Templates/ On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Abduladem Eljamel < a_elja...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Thankyou very much Martynas. it realy

Re: What might cause a writeAll stack overflow?

On 06/10/17 18:46, Steve Vestal wrote: I do have reasoning enabled, but it seems to have done its job by the time I'm ready for output. No, unless you are using your own rules then only the forward rules will have run. The backward rules are run in response to queries. A writeAll in RDF/XML

Re: Inferencing by SPARQL

Thanks DiogoHowever, I think it is not possible to compare OWL or OWL reasoning with SPARQL.What was in my mind when I asked the question is to compare Rule-based reasoning with SPARQL. ThanksAbdul On Friday, 6 October 2017, 15:40:33 GMT+1, Diogo FC Patrao wrote:

Re: Inferencing by SPARQL

Hi, as far as I understood, any inferred results are consistent with the KB. They are the logical consequence of KB. However, the facts inserted by SPARQL might violate with the KB, no consistency checking involved. Inferencing is a service provided by Description Logics, SPARQL is just a

Re: Inferencing by SPARQL

Hi Please forgive any mistakes below. SPARQL is a language to deal with data; OWL is meant to deal with concepts. You may argue that both can produce the same results. However there is an important difference: the language. As using owl one may represent both concepts and their relations in

Inferencing by SPARQL

Hello,, My simple understanding of Inferencing is “inferring new facts fromexisting facts”. In that sense, I believe that there are some similarities of INSERT command in SPARQL. Can SPARQL be utilised in Inferencing? Are there any researches in investigating the cons and pros of

Re: Problem with MAX when no result expected

hasNext()? https://jena.apache.org/documentation/javadoc/arq/org/apache/jena/query/ResultSet.html#hasNext-- On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:26 PM, George News wrote: > On 2017-10-06 11:25, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > The two result sets you show both have one row, with bindings.

Re: Problem with MAX when no result expected

On 2017-10-06 11:25, Andy Seaborne wrote: > The two result sets you show both have one row, with bindings. That's > consistent with aggregation of nothing (no groups, or if no GROUP BY, no > results from the WHERE pattern. I don't see it the same way. The first one (without max) is an empty

Re: What might cause a writeAll stack overflow?

Another possibility: The RDF/XML pretty writer can use a lot of stack if it encounters certain data patterns where there are choices of how to write the top-most level tags. The solution is to either find the formatting rule that causes the problem or write using the plain writer.

Re: Problem with MAX when no result expected

The two result sets you show both have one row, with bindings. That's consistent with aggregation of nothing (no groups, or if no GROUP BY, no results from the WHERE pattern. MAX() of nothing is unbound but for any aggregation, there always is a row/ c.f. COUNT(*) is 0 when there are no

Problem with MAX when no result expected

Hi all, I am executing a SPARQL with MAX aggregate function and I'm facing a strange behaviour, or at least I think it is. The snipset of the select variables is the following: select ?id (MAX(?ti) as ?time) ?value ?latitude ?longitude where { .. } If I launch the SPARQL query and there

Re: What might cause a writeAll stack overflow?

If your myOntology object is an OntModel and has reasoning enabled then writeAll will ask it to create the entire closure of the model before (well as part of) writing it out. The closure of the model can be a *lot* bigger than the model. Technically the closure can be infinite but part of