[Pellet-users] PelletInfGraph and change to the Pellet KB via Jena OntModel

[Paolo Bussotti]

Dear All,
I'm exploring the incremental reasoning properties of Pellet even if I cannot use them in my current project.
But I would ask you some question (also related to other mail exchanges in the list):

I've seen that, if directly use the KB methods to change the KB (addIndividual, etc..), then when I test the status of the KB via isChanged() it returns true, as expectable, and when I call getInfo() it responds correctly with the changes made.
But, in my current project, I change the KB through a Jena Pellet-backed OntModel (and so I cannot get incremental reasoning) and what I'd like to know is this:
If I make a change to the model (e.g. add an Individual) through the Jena methods, then create the PelletInfGraph and prepare it, I think that the whole graph underlying the model of the ontology and its imports is sent to the OWLReasoner and KnowledgeBase (correct me if I'm wrong, please).
When I get the KB by calling the getKB() method on the prepared PelletInfGraph, and then call getInfo() then the change in the KB (e.g. a new individual) is shown as happened. But if I call isChanged() it return false. This, according to me, is due to the fact that a clear() operation followed by a complete reloading is non considered as a change, is simply a new knowledgebase content. 
In each case I can work with it, cheching consistency after changes and so on, even if performances are obviously low.
In particular I've understood from the list that the fact that PelletInfGraph.prepare() clears and reloads everything (and not just add the differences) is due to the particular implementation of Jena bindings.
Might you, please, correct me If I asserted something wrong and/or provide some additional details?
Thank you in advance,
Paolo Bussotti                   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.owldl.com/pipermail/pellet-users/attachments/20070622/27db7e24/attachment.htm