Thanks - this could be considered good news - no need to change code using
OntModel .

Nina

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, chung <chvng at mail.ntua.gr> wrote:

> Hi Nina, Egon, All,
>   It seems that OntModel and "Default" Model implementations are
> equivalent in terms of performance. We measured the time needed to
> download and parse datasets into a Jena Model Object. The results are
> summarized in the last paragraph of the attached document.
>



> Best Regards,
> Pantelis
>
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 04:24 +0300, chung wrote:
>
> > Hi Nina,
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 18:23 +0300, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pantelis,
> > >
> > > Just to add - if I understood right, it might require some work to
> parse non
> > > - OntModel into ToxOtis internal objects, but what I would be
> interested is
> > > the time to parse the incoming stream into Jena model only, ignoring
> further
> > > transformations for the time being.
> >
> >
> > We've put this in high priority so that in case there's a significant
> > difference between OntModel and other Model implementations, we'll
> > refactor a bit the source code. So we'll have the related results by
> > tomorrow...
> >
> > Pantelis
> >
> > >
> > > Do you think this kind of measurement is feasible?
> > > Nina
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Nina Jeliazkova
> > > <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pantelis,
> > > >
> > > > There is no problem of parsing OWL-DL with Jena models (recall OWL-DL
> is a
> > > > valid RDF) , different than OntModel.
> > > >
> > > > You will only loose some convenient methods and classes in Jena, but
> you
> > > > can still check if a class has certain rdf:type or certain
> properties.  I
> > > > agree the client code might became less elegant , but performance
> gain may
> > > > worth it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:08 PM, chung <chvng at mail.ntua.gr> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Nina, Egon,
> > > >>   That would be an interesting experiment in general but there are
> some
> > > >> technical problems related to ToxOtis and to the current format of
> our
> > > >> RDF documents. First of all, a common RDF specification has been
> chosen,
> > > >> that is OWL-DL and we have lots of times striven to stick to it.
> ToxOtis
> > > >> produces OWL-DL compliant RDF representations for every OpenTox
> entity
> > > >> (methods asIndividual(OntModel):Individual and asOntModel():OntModel
> ).
> > > >> OntModel and OntClass have been chosen as the prime Jena objects to
> work
> > > >> with in ToxOtis and in YAQP, our web application also. Apart from
> the
> > > >> fact that it would be hard to change that, I also reckon we
> shouldn't
> > > >> for various reasons I'll try to summarize.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >   OntModel is an interface that offers lots of functionalities such
> as
> > > >> creation of Annotation, Datatype and Object Properties that are
> missing
> > > >> from the interface Model where one can just use
> m.createProperty(String)
> > > >> to create an untyped property. Additionally, OntModel is tightly
> > > >> connected to OntClass, an interface used to describe the ontological
> > > >> classes to which instances are binded. So if we need to produce
> OWL-DL
> > > >> compliant representations we either need an implementation of
> OntModel
> > > >> and OntClass provided by Jena or one of ours. My opinion is that the
> > > >> adoption of OWL-DL against OWL-Full or OWL-Lite does not increase
> > > >> significantly the size of the representation. What is more, OWL-DL
> > > >> guarantees computability and decidability and does not oblige users
> to
> > > >> use some inference engine that imposes overhead so it would be
> better to
> > > >> cling to it both for the server and from the client side.
> > > >>   As you already know, using OntModel we have performed measurements
> to
> > > >> compare between different specifications and it was shown that
> OWL-DL
> > > >> performs better for parsing documents compared to OWL and OWL-Lite.
> What
> > > >> might be of interest is to reveal the impact of the cache size (for
> in
> > > >> memory triple storage) on the performance of RDF parse/serialization
> > > >> procedure and on the allocation of resources.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >> Pantelis
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 15:12 +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Pantelis,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Nina Jeliazkova
> > > >> > <jeliazkova.nina at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >> Would it be hard for you to switch to "plain" RDF (i.e.  omit
> all
> > > >> > >> RDF:type statements) and compare computation times with OWL
> > > >> > >> representations.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > From dataset service point of view it is practically impossible,
> > > >> without
> > > >> > > breaking everything,  but form client point of view one can try
> using
> > > >> Jena
> > > >> > > models, different than OntModel.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > what happens if you use either of these:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ModelFactory.createDefaultModel()
> > > >> > ModelFactory.createNonreifyingModel()
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> If you think this is necessary, we can set up an experiment without
> > > >> ToxOtis...
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, please (unless it is a month work...)
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Nina
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Egon
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Development mailing list
> > > >> Development at opentox.org
> > > >> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Development mailing list
> > > Development at opentox.org
> > > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Development mailing list
> > Development at opentox.org
> > http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
> >
>
>
>