Hi there, I am working on these things too these days. I try to do all without owlapi, and I hope I will be able to. Thank you all for these question/clear answers. About my tests, as far as I can see, with jena & pellet I am able to : - transform the data from TDB and pass the pellet rules + knowlege base on it, in 4 lines code. - add individuals, data/objects properties and all OWL stuff thanks to Jena OR pellet methods - create SPARQL with jenaARQ OR SPARQLDL with Pellet What I will try to do in the next days will be : - get what you called the "InferredIndividualAxiomGenerator" within jena. -> I have some starting points (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25055263/how-to-get-only-inferred-data-from-jena-ontology-model) - get the explanations of inferred axioms from pellet (the same as Protégé shows when you hit the "?") -> any idea ?. - create my own pellet built-in (begining with implementing some dates related built-in). Maybe make a pull request on github then -> I have already read an interesting post of Rodrigo about that on the Pellet forum.
2015-12-09 0:23 GMT+01:00 Rodrigo Antonialli <rcantonia...@gmail.com>: > > Short answer: yes, that's it... > > Long answer: > > I've created the ontologies using Protege, and uploaded them to Fuseki. > When I need the ontologies in my application, Jena is used to load the > ontologies from Fuseki. In most cases, I do things with Jena, specially > SPARQL. > > But once the ontologies are stored into OntModel, they can be written to > some OutputStream and read from OWLAPI. Using OWLAPI at certain application > features, I'm creating some individuals and running Pellet inference, > including SWRL rules (which, in my case, are defined in a separated > file/graph, which is better for maintenance). > > There are 'tools' from OWLAPI to extract the inferred axioms only (like > InferredIndividualAxiomGenerator). In my case, I'm joining the inferred > axioms with the individuals and "exporting" back to Jena... from Jena it's > just to upload them to Fuseki again... > > > That may looks like an ugly and unnecessary overhead from some point of > views.... but with that "architecture", I can benefit from both: Jena + > Fuseki (storage and SPARQL) and OWLAPI + Pellet (Inferences, SWRL)... > actually, it's a good way (or at least the one I've found) to use the power > of both APIs. IMHO, there are some things easier to be done with Jena and > others easier with OWLAPI (mostly because they are focused on different > aspects... Jena is more "RDF-centric" and OWLAPI, "OWL-centric") > > > > > Rodrigo C. Antonialli > ====================================== > Rio Claro - SP - Brasil > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rcantonialli > Contato: rcantonia...@gmail.com > Skype: rc_antonialli > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Chris Snyder <csny...@mind-tap.net> wrote: > > > That is very helpful feedback. > > > > As a clarification I attempted to use the Pellet code from Maven central > > and that is where I ran into the package name change issue. I might try > > getting in touch with Ignazio directly to see if I can help make the > > updates to get Pellet working with the latest Jena. > > > > If you don’t mind my asking, how are you applying the SWRL rules in > > practice? E.G. are you applying the SWRL rules using the OWLAPI + Pellet > > and then exporting the additional reasoned triples to your Fuseki instance > > so they can be queried with SPARQL? > > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Rodrigo Antonialli <rcantonia...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > Maybe I'm not an expert to answer you properly, but I've being working > > with > > > this kind of scenario (Ontologies, SWRL, jena, owlapi) lately and here is > > > what I can share: > > > > > > 1) Yes. As far as I know, Jena doesn't have native support for SWRL. > > > > > > 2) The most recent versions of pellet I've seen is the one from Ignazio > > > Palmisano, which you can find at Maven Central > > > <http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Cignazio1977>. I know it > > works > > > with most recent versions of OWL-API, can't tell what Jena version it > > > supports now... (I don't know if he is in this mailling list, but you can > > > find him in owlapi mailling list =P) > > > > > > 3) Can't tell for sure, once I've never used Jena Rules, but I believe > > the > > > differences should be around details and most things would be made with > > > both. Actually, Jena Rules and SWRL are "competing" (emphasis on the > > > quotes) with SPARQL SPIN from TopBraid, so it's difficult to find clear > > > documented comparisons. There are a lot of considerations around the > > > subject... > > > > > > 4) The problem with other reasoners is, usually, not Jena compatibility, > > > but SWRL support... As far as I could look around, pellet is the only > > > free/open-source reasoner with a good support for SWRL. I've spent some > > > time looking around, because the pellet performance with SWRL is a little > > > problematic when the ontology is complex, there are a great number of > > > rules... Although one thing I've found to be a nice feature is the > > ability > > > to create custom functions for SWRL using Pellet. It was good for me to > > > work with geospatial data (and now I'm trying to speed things up)... > > > > > > 5) "What should I use" questions are like "What's the best", and the best > > > answer is: it depends... of a lot of things... I've being working with > > both > > > APIs and by now, I chose to use Jena to work with Fusek and SPARQL and > > > OWLAPI to manipulate the ontology directly (build and manage axioms). > > > Simple SPARQL queries you can change for some OWLAPI code, but the > > > endpoint/tdb support in jena are an advantage. It's quite easy to work > > with > > > both in the same application (both API read and write from various > > formats) > > > > > > > > > Rodrigo C. Antonialli > > > ====================================== > > > Rio Claro - SP - Brasil > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rcantonialli > > > Contato: rcantonia...@gmail.com > > > Skype: rc_antonialli > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Chris Snyder <csny...@mind-tap.net> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I have a few reasoner questions. > > >> > > >> 1) I’m using the latest version of Jena 3.0.0 is it true that the only > > way > > >> to use SWRL rules is with an external reasoner? My concern is how I > > would > > >> use Protege which can handle adding SWRL rules and then processing the > > >> ontology with Jena. > > >> > > >> 2) I tried to integrate the Pellet reasoner but to get it to work with > > >> Jena 3.0.0 I believe I would need to fork the Pellet code and update all > > >> the Jena package paths in it to use the new “org.apache.jena.” location. > > >> Can anyone comment on that? > > >> > > >> 3) If I am using the built in Jena reasoner is there anything major > > that I > > >> can not do with the Jena rule language that I could do with SWRL? > > >> > > >> 4) Is there an reasoner other than Pellet that someone has used with > > Jena > > >> 3.0.0 successfully that will process SWRL rules? > > >> > > >> 5) A reasoner is obviously an important part of using an ontology. Is > > Jena > > >> the appropriate way to go or should I be looking into the OWLAPI? > > >> > > >> Thanks in advance, > > >> Chris > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
