Andy, I am curious, I have not evaluated this. Are there any inherent performance consequences when working with a union of graphs? For example, is there a need to do multiple lookups as opposed to one when searching for resources?
-----Original Message----- From: Andy Seaborne [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 4:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Ontologies and model data On 03/06/13 18:09, Joshua TAYLOR wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Cindy A McMullen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've been working with Protege, where the 'individuals' are loaded >> into the same model as my ontologies. In the real world, however, I >> wonder whether one loads the ontologies into a separate model from >> the actual graph data. Any best practices here? > > I typically create my data (mostly individuals and property > assertions) in an OWL ontology that owl:imports the ontology that > defines the vocabulary (mostly classes and properties) is defined. > I think that's fairly common practice, especially when referencing > ontologies that you didn't create. > If the individuals are in one named graph of a TDB dataset, the ontology can go in another, so they are in different graphs. You can query the combination with the union of named graphs as the default graph of the SPARQL query. Or you can use a union graph of two graphs in-memory (or indeed any storage mixture). Andy
