You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@jena.apache.org by "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com> on 2013/02/07 00:06:08 UTC
Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Hello all,
I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
-Travis
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>.
Pellet has a quite restrictive licence (AGPLv3). And the Apache
Foundation does not
accept projects with such licences.
I have no clue about the future plans of Clark&Parsia (the company
behind Pellet).
There was a thread earlier on this list about implementing OWL2-RL with
rules. I cannot remember whether the internal rules engine of Jena
can manage that variant of OWL2 all by itself.
In my opinion, RDFS plus the unionOf statement of OWL is ok for basic
data modelling.
It is roughly entity-relationships modeling. But from a business
perspective, it still
embraces a lot of your data structures.
(comments are welcome on this assumption :)
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Jordan <Da...@sas.com> wrote:
> If that is true, would it make sense to fold Pellet into the Apache Jena project, or would that detract from supporting multiple reasoners?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier Rossel [mailto:olivier.rossel@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:54 AM
> To: users@jena.apache.org; Milorad Tosic
> Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>
> I think RDFS (aka RDFSchema) is good with a slight dose of OWL.
> Please note that Jena alone cannot handle some advanced OWL structures all by itself.
> We usually rely upon the Pellet add-on in that case.
> Unfortunately, the Pellet library is (as far as I know) no longer maintained.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi Travis,
>>
>> GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for computational infrastructure.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Milorad Tosic
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
>> [2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
>>>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
>>>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
>>>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>>>
>>>Hello all,
>>>
>>>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
>>>
>>>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
>>>
>>>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
>>>
>>>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
>>>
>>>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
>>>
>>>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
>>>
>>>-Travis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>.
Clark & Parsia still make Pellet but from Pellet 3 onwards it is a
commercial only product and was comprehensively rewritten AFAIK. It is
also quite heavily integrated into Stardog their triple store offering.
I believe they stopped maintaining the open source version because of
commercial pressures, maintaing a free version of your product does tend
to cut into your sales.
Rob
On 2/7/13 8:07 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>On 07/02/13 14:06, David Jordan wrote:
>> If that is true, would it make sense to fold Pellet into the Apache
>> Jena project, or would that detract from supporting multiple
>> reasoners?
>
>Pellet is owned by Clark&Parsia.
>The license is AGPL Version 3.
>
>Someone could choose to get Pellet and maintain/update it under an AGPL3
>license outside Apache.
>
>http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
>The Apache Software License is recognized as compatible with GPL3.
>You need to check but I think it will also apply to AGPLv3 as well.
>
> Andy
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 07/02/13 14:06, David Jordan wrote:
> If that is true, would it make sense to fold Pellet into the Apache
> Jena project, or would that detract from supporting multiple
> reasoners?
Pellet is owned by Clark&Parsia.
The license is AGPL Version 3.
Someone could choose to get Pellet and maintain/update it under an AGPL3
license outside Apache.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
The Apache Software License is recognized as compatible with GPL3.
You need to check but I think it will also apply to AGPLv3 as well.
Andy
RE: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by David Jordan <Da...@sas.com>.
If that is true, would it make sense to fold Pellet into the Apache Jena project, or would that detract from supporting multiple reasoners?
-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Rossel [mailto:olivier.rossel@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:54 AM
To: users@jena.apache.org; Milorad Tosic
Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
I think RDFS (aka RDFSchema) is good with a slight dose of OWL.
Please note that Jena alone cannot handle some advanced OWL structures all by itself.
We usually rely upon the Pellet add-on in that case.
Unfortunately, the Pellet library is (as far as I know) no longer maintained.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for computational infrastructure.
>
> Regards,
> Milorad Tosic
>
>
>
> [1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
> [2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
>>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
>>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
>>
>>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
>>
>>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
>>
>>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
>>
>>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>>
>>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
>>
>>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
>>
>>-Travis
>>
>>
>>
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Olivier Rossel <ol...@gmail.com>.
I think RDFS (aka RDFSchema) is good with a slight dose of OWL.
Please note that Jena alone cannot handle some advanced OWL structures
all by itself.
We usually rely upon the Pellet add-on in that case.
Unfortunately, the Pellet library is (as far as I know) no longer maintained.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for computational infrastructure.
>
> Regards,
> Milorad Tosic
>
>
>
> [1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
> [2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
>>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
>>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
>>
>>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
>>
>>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
>>
>>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
>>
>>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>>
>>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
>>
>>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
>>
>>-Travis
>>
>>
>>
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Al Baker <aj...@gmail.com>.
Pellet is still available, maintained, and supported by Clark & Parsia,
where a commerical license is avialable if AGPL is not to your liking.
There is a Pellet mailing list [1] where questions still come in and are
actively monitored.
It is true - the newest reasoning implementations and focus of investments
are now in Stardog - our new RDF database, which has both a community
version and an enterprise version [2]. For example, Stardog supports
Integrity Constraint Validation - a way to add closed world assumption
style schema constraints into your model. But I digress..
Getting back on track - I do think this is a good application for Jena, and
a capabilities and reqirements ontology would be a pretty cool thing to
have around too :)
Regards,
Al Baker
[1] http://lists.owldl.com/mailman/listinfo/pellet-users/
[2] http://www.stardog.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Emmanuelle <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> I'm a software engineer who had to use RDF, OWL, SPARQL and jena for
> the first time recently for my master thesis. Also, I had no previous
> experience building a whole application in java. I have more than 10
> years experience but never did semantic web technologies or java
> before, although I knew the language.
>
> My first steps were to read the w3c recommendations for RDF, RDFS and
> OWL then I played some with Protege following their "pizza" tutorial
> to see how all that work and fit together. It didn't take long, I
> don't remember how much exactly but it was fast, I'm talking of days
> here, maybe 2 weeks at most. Then, after reading the Jena
> documentation, I started the implementation of a web service interface
> for CRUD + several data retrieval operations on the ontology stored in
> a TDB dataset. That took a little longer but after a month it was up
> and running. The longuest part was to design the ontology.
>
> Of course my experience is in the context of a masters, it's not a
> professional application but it gives you an idea. Don't hesitate to
> contact me if you have questions.
>
> Regards,
> Emmanuelle
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Tripp, Travis S <tr...@hp.com>
> wrote:
> > Thank you, Milorad.
> >
> > Everybody else,
> >
> > One of the concerns I have is what the learning curve is for a team now
> to Jena / RDF/s and OWL. I don't want to bring this into the team and have
> them declare it a failure because the learning curve was too high. Any
> idea of how long it takes for a software engineer to be somewhat functional
> with Jena and RDF?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Travis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milorad Tosic [mailto:mbtosic@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:22 AM
> > To: users@jena.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
> >
> > Hi Travis,
> >
> > GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network
> Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as
> well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has
> extensions for computational infrastructure.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Milorad Tosic
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
> > [2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
> >> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
> >>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
> >>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
> >>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
> >>
> >>Hello all,
> >>
> >>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called
> TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to
> leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole
> ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
> >>
> >>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use
> capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a
> requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities.
> A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software,
> etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability
> might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for
> specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific
> properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the
> storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A
> capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu
> can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7),
> may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available
> properties (INSTALL_DIR).
> >>
> >>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and
> requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't
> provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and
> requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer
> working draft:
> >>
> >>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies
> between node types. For example, the following
> "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express
> the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache
> web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the
> "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a
> CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container
> for Apache web applications.
> >>
> >>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the
> ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like
> RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use
> it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a
> translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a
> fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any
> thoughts on this would be appreciated.
> >>
> >>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could
> use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example
> RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database
> vendors and properties?
> >>
> >>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly
> appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
> >>
> >>-Travis
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Emmanuelle <er...@gmail.com>.
Hi Travis,
I'm a software engineer who had to use RDF, OWL, SPARQL and jena for
the first time recently for my master thesis. Also, I had no previous
experience building a whole application in java. I have more than 10
years experience but never did semantic web technologies or java
before, although I knew the language.
My first steps were to read the w3c recommendations for RDF, RDFS and
OWL then I played some with Protege following their "pizza" tutorial
to see how all that work and fit together. It didn't take long, I
don't remember how much exactly but it was fast, I'm talking of days
here, maybe 2 weeks at most. Then, after reading the Jena
documentation, I started the implementation of a web service interface
for CRUD + several data retrieval operations on the ontology stored in
a TDB dataset. That took a little longer but after a month it was up
and running. The longuest part was to design the ontology.
Of course my experience is in the context of a masters, it's not a
professional application but it gives you an idea. Don't hesitate to
contact me if you have questions.
Regards,
Emmanuelle
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Tripp, Travis S <tr...@hp.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Milorad.
>
> Everybody else,
>
> One of the concerns I have is what the learning curve is for a team now to Jena / RDF/s and OWL. I don't want to bring this into the team and have them declare it a failure because the learning curve was too high. Any idea of how long it takes for a software engineer to be somewhat functional with Jena and RDF?
>
> Thanks,
> Travis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milorad Tosic [mailto:mbtosic@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:22 AM
> To: users@jena.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>
> Hi Travis,
>
> GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for computational infrastructure.
>
> Regards,
> Milorad Tosic
>
>
>
> [1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
> [2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
>>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
>>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
>>
>>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
>>
>>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
>>
>>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
>>
>>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>>
>>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
>>
>>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
>>
>>-Travis
>>
>>
>>
RE: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>.
Thank you, Milorad.
Everybody else,
One of the concerns I have is what the learning curve is for a team now to Jena / RDF/s and OWL. I don't want to bring this into the team and have them declare it a failure because the learning curve was too high. Any idea of how long it takes for a software engineer to be somewhat functional with Jena and RDF?
Thanks,
Travis
-----Original Message-----
From: Milorad Tosic [mailto:mbtosic@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:22 AM
To: users@jena.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Hi Travis,
GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for computational infrastructure.
Regards,
Milorad Tosic
[1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
[2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
>________________________________
> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>
>Hello all,
>
>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
>
>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
>
>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
>
>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
>
>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>
>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
>
>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
>
>-Travis
>
>
>
Re: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
Posted by Milorad Tosic <mb...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Travis,
GENI project [1] have developed OWL extension of the NDL (Network Description Language) [2] set of ontologies. You may find it informative as well as useful for your purpose particularly NDL-OWL since it has extensions for computational infrastructure.
Regards,
Milorad Tosic
[1] https://geni-orca.renci.org/trac/wiki/NDL-OWL
[2] http://www.science.uva.nl/research/sne/ndl
>________________________________
> From: "Tripp, Travis S" <tr...@hp.com>
>To: "users@jena.apache.org" <us...@jena.apache.org>
>Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:06 AM
>Subject: Is Jena / RDF / OWL the right fit?
>
>Hello all,
>
>I am on a project where we are investigating a new OASIS spec called TOSCA. I am looking for advice on whether or not it would make sense to leverage RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against.
>
>It has a concept of requirements and capabilities which allow you to use capabilities to describe the capabilities of an entity and then can use a requirements document to find entities the provide the needed capabilities. A capability typically will be related to concepts like hardware, software, etc. For example, I may have a capability of Java. The java capability might have properties like JAVA_HOME. It could have descendants for specific versions of Java (Java 6, Java 7, etc) with descendent specific properties. Or I may have a capability called block storage and the storage will have a minimum size and maximum size associated with it. A capability is essentially something that can have hierarchy (e.g. Ubuntu can inherit from Linux), traversal ordering (Java 6 comes before Java 7), may have quantity associated with it (Memory), and may have available properties (INSTALL_DIR).
>
>The TOSCA spec itself has a language for describing capabilities and requirements in their format, which I have attached. It also doesn't provide any specification on how to process the capabilities and requirements. Below is another example snippet from the TOSCA primer working draft:
>
>In TOSCA, requirements and capabilities allow to define dependencies between node types. For example, the following "ApacheWebApplicationContainerCapability" capability type allows to express the capability of a node type to serve as a runtime container for an Apache web application; note, that the capability type inherits from the "WebApplicationContainerCapability". Each node type that includes a CapabilityDefinition of this type warrants that it can serve as a container for Apache web applications.
>
>What I am curious is whether or not it would make sense to have the ontology of capabilities and requirement internally stored in a format like RDF / OWL and that we can then use Jena to store the whole ontology and use it for querying and performing searches against. We would then support a translation format to the TOSCA format on demand. I don't want to kill a fly with a sledgehammer, but also don't want to reinvent anything. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
>
>Secondarily, are there any available ontology libraries that we could use to bootstrap our library of capabilities / requirements? For example RDF or OWL ontologies that already have a standard description of database vendors and properties?
>
>I hope this isn't an abuse of the mailing list, but I certainly appreciate any guidance that can be provided.
>
>-Travis
>
>
>