Jeff, (01)
I'll defer to Ian to answer you (either via this email discussion, or
at one of the OWL 2 sessions.) (02)
By the way, I assume your message to [ontolog-forum] got bounced,
because posting is only allowed for subscriber. If, after you review
our terms of membership (see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J ), and
confirms to join the community, I can get you subscribed. After that,
you can openly discuss with the entire Ontolog community via that
mailing list. (03)
Best. =ppy
-- (04)
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Zhuk, Yefim <Yefim.Zhuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ian, Peter,
>
> I've read the paper on modularization. The safety idea definitely makes sense
>to me.
>
> In your article several screen shots were taken to illustrate the methods.
>
> Was it Protégé or some other tools?
>
> Do they implement to some degree these methods or you have to manually
>massage ontology to make the modules?
>
> I wonder if any tools exist today (or almost ready:-)) to implement this or
>similar methods.
>
> Do you have specific plans on such tools?
>
> Or maybe you collaborate with some other group, like Stanford U, to implement
>these ideas? Open source project?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jeff (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:16 AM
> To: Ian Horrocks; Zhuk, Yefim; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Fwd: owl and scalability
>
> Thank you, Ian. ... Let's put this conversation onto the discussion
> list to share it with the community.
>
> Jeff, please check out our membership details (see:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J ) in case
> you aren't already an Ontolog member (and is therefore not subscribed
> to the [ontolog-forum] list yet.)
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: owl and scalability
> To: "Zhuk, Yefim (Jeff)" <Yefim.Zhuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Quick answer -- if you need more please come along next week.
>
> OWL ontologies can be split into multiple files. From a
> formal/semantic POV this makes absolutely no difference. Effects on
> performance will be very much tool dependent. If you can really
> identify a subset of the ontology that is (for example) sufficient to
> answer queries at run time, then this may well improve performance
> with some tools. Identifying such subsets is highly non-trivial in
> general (naive syntactic techniques don't work in general), but there
> are now well understood techniques that can achieve semantic
> modularisation, and even some tool support -- see, e.g., [1].
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
> [1]
>http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2008/CHKS08a.pdf
> ---
>
>
> On 23 Jul 2010, at 05:01, Peter Yim wrote:
>> Hello Jeff,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the message.
>>
>> You are probably aware that Professor Horrocks (who gave today's talk
>> on "Scalable Ontology-Based Information Systems") will be championing
>> two more sessions (on Thu 2010.07.29 & 2010.08.05, i.e. on the next
>> two coming Thursdays) on "OWL 2." The Jul-29 session will cover the
>> OWL 2 standard and specifications, and the Aug-5 sessions will be on
>> Tools and Applications. He has invited a panel of experts to join him
>> at the Aug-5 session too. See:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-07/msg00028.html
>>
>> I would, therefore, strongly suggest that you come join us at these
>> two sessions. There will be plenty of time for discussion, and a lot
>> of expertise around. You might bring up your questions and suggested
>> approach for discussion then ... your question would be especially
>> appropriate for the Aug-5 session.
>>
>>
>> Regards. =ppy
>>
>> Peter P. Yim
>> --
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Zhuk, Yefim <Yefim.Zhuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>>> Hi Peter!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you so much for facilitating this event (7/22, Scalable Ontology-Based
>>> Information Systems).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A question: OWL can be split into multiple files. What are the best
>>> practices to use this feature for better performance.
>>>
>>> For example, I'd think of taking into a separate file a specific sub-domain
>>> that is a focus of run-time query, while keeping the rest in another file
>>> and have some pre-compiled (design-time created) things that would help at
>>> run-time processing. This balance might vary from task to task.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any practices like this or similar and better?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff
>
> This E-Mail has been scanned for viruses.
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|