We had a discussion today about how long we expect each element of the changeover to take. Part of this process was discussing what each of us had learnt about the code in question, so we could determine the scope of the work. This let us describe what features each item may or may not have in the new system.
In order for
walk to work over multiple resolver backends, it will be necessary to perform these functions on each backend individually, and then perform the operation again on the full collection of results. In many cases the final operation would not find any similar nodes, and the result would simply be a union of each of the partial results, though if models from different sources referred to the same resource then this mechanism would find that as well.
The problem with performing a
walk over all collated results is that the partial results are in global space, making the operations expensive.
Given the difficulty and of the collation, and the rarity of common nodes across data sources which have transitive relationships, TJ decided that Kowari can do without it for the time being. At this stage we just need it running with all current features on the new codebase, so I agree with him here. Full transitivity can be performed later, as it is needed.
In the meantime I will be working on the distributed Node Type model, and on distributed queries. I've already started pulling the old distributed code into the new interface, and I should be working on that for the next few days.
A lot of today was spent updating my timesheets. I keep a time log in a text file, so it should be trivial to put these into the time keeping system. Unfortunately, the web pages used to input data have a lot of input fields. This makes each page painfully slow to render, even on a fast machine. Even scrolling can be slow. The result is a very slow process to enter trivial data.
I'd be better off just putting in each day's data as I finished the day, but when I'm about to leave I'm not normally interested in spending 5 extra minutes at work, especially when it is data that I should be able to enter in a matter of moments.
That said, I'll see if I can start putting the data in first thing in the morning. I've been getting in early for the last few days, so if I can keep it up I should be able to find the time.
I saw Bob again today and reported on what I've been doing. Not a lot in terms of reading, which is something I should try to remedy next time.
He was interested that I've been looking more carefully at the documentation for OWL. This is something I should have already done, but who likes reading specifications? Bob agreed with me here. :-)
At least I ended up with a better knowledge of OWL. I've looked at some of my older posts, and have cringed at the naïvité of some of my statements.
While discussing some of the interesting restrictions I've found in the species of OWL, Bob suggested that I try and document them all, and pay particular attention to the ramifications of each difference. For instance, I can't see that there is a real decidability problem with cardinality, even though OWL DL restricts this to 0 or 1. The only reason for this restriction appears to be because description logic does not support counting, even though this is an easy operation in most systems.
Anyway, I'll be looking at these differences for the next few days. Once I have something done, I'll look to see who else has done this, and compare what we have found.
Bob was also interested that iTQL has no RDF support in it. AN and I have been considering putting support in for some items such as collections, but to date we have been able to avoid it.
Now that I want to provide a mechanism to find descriptions in OWL, I'm starting to wonder where it fits. This should really become an OWL API, which is layered over the RDF API, but should this be reflected in iTQL? This would seem to break the separation of layers, but iTQL is currently the only user interface available. There is also the argument that we are building an ontology server, so it makes sense to have ontology support in the user interface.
For the moment we have only provided a set of complex, low level operations which will perform ontology operations when all applied together, but this does not yet make an ontology server. I suppose this makes me wonder if iTQL should start to support RDF and OWL, or if should be used as the building blocks for a higher level language which provides this functionality. However, this would mean writing a new language... and I really don't want to do that.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004