Movies.ttl loads into database but no instances visible in web interface

I already loaded movies.ttl into stardog database .All the data is there( I already exported it) but on web interface there is no subclass and no instances

What version of Stardog are you running?

How did you load your data?

Can you share your movies.ttl data?

It is same file which is used in stardog example(from the vendor).
Its version is 5.0.5.1.
I load it whith db create command

I even upgraded to 5.0.2 (newest version) but the problem still is there.
Maybe because the data base is big it can not handle it.

For Stardog (depending on how much memory you’ve got) it isn’t very big. I can’t test it out right now but I believe what you’re seeing is correct. I don’t think that data set has any class information.

I test my stardog on another file(*.owl file) and it is working fine.
If there is no class information so where are all the 10MB data?

There are still a lot of statements in there. It’s just that none of them are rdf:type

You should know that you can query only for information that’s contained in the dataset. No idea why you expect that each dataset contains class assertions, i.e. triples :s rdf:type :C with :C being a class. Or schema triples are also not mandatory, e.g. :A rdfs:subClassOf :B.
An RDF dataset doesn’t necessary has a schema, it’s different to e.g. a relational database. You have the file, open it, grep it, etc. - you’ll see that there is no such information. Indeed, you could add such information if you really need it. You just have to figure out what an appropriate schema would be - which in fact needs some effort.

I even upgraded to 5.0.2 (newest version)

Latest Stardog version is 5.2.0 since 2018-01-09 – before it was 5.1.0 - not sure why you referred to 5.0.2 with release date: 2017-08-01

I can only guess that they expected to be able to browse to any data that was in the database and since you couldn’t browse to it from the web console that it wasn’t there. There’s also the possibility that they expected that all subjects would be listed as a subclass of owl:Thing even if they didn’t have explicit type information the same way that properties are listed even though they don’t have any explicit type information as well. (I’m not saying that’s correct but just speculation about what they might have been thinking)

You could try adding some type information if you’d like with the following sparql query

INSERT {
    ?movie a :Movie
} WHERE {
    ?movie :actor ?actor
}

I can’t test it out but I think that should do the trick or something close to it.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.