Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[bioontology-support] Cannot access 1649

Paul R Alexander palexander at
Thu Aug 9 12:56:19 PDT 2012

The size of the ontology should not have a bearing on speed, except for 
two things (which I don't think apply here):
1. There is a parent node with thousands of child nodes.
2. There is a node with thousands of properties or property values.

However, I have found a problem with the HOM-OSHPD ontology. When it is 
first loaded by any one of our Protege back-end systems (there are three 
that respond to requests), it takes 230+ seconds. We then cache the 
loaded ontology for some time. When it is dropped from the cache on any 
of the systems, it will then take another 230+ seconds to load. I think 
the issue might be a missing import 
( There's a chance we 
can fix this on our end. I'll keep investigating.


On 8/9/12 12:07 PM, Mobed, Ketty wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I am experiencing fewer problems since switching the mapping target. 
> Before I tried mapping individuals nodes from ID 3125 
> (profectus.oshpd.installation) to ID 1649 (HOM-OSHPD) and wasn't able 
> to pull up the terms to create the mappings. Now I have switched and 
> am mapping from 1649 to 3125. This seems to be working okay, with 
> slowing down on occasion which I remedy with reloading the page and 
> continuing on mapping. So this now works for me. Can you inspect and 
> see if 1649 may have a size issue related to the inability to map?
> Thanks very much,
> Ketty
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Paul R Alexander [palexander at]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:58 AM
> *To:* Mobed, Ketty
> *Cc:* Trish Whetzel; Wynden, Rob; Lakshminarayanan, Prakash; 
> support at
> *Subject:* Re: [bioontology-support] Cannot access 1649
> Ketty,
> Are you still experiencing issues? Can you give me a basic idea of 
> what you are doing? My guess is that you are on the HOM-OSHPD page 
> where it shows terms. You navigate to a particular term, select the 
> mapping tab, and then try to create a mapping. It sounds like the part 
> that is slow is after you have searched for and selected a term from 
> the target ontology it can take a while for the term information to 
> appear.
> Is this correct? If so, which ontologies are you using as targets?
> Thanks,
> Paul
> On 8/9/12 10:55 AM, Mobed, Ketty wrote:
>> ...just fyi, but I can do otherway around mapping more quickly (which 
>> i am doing now)
>> Ketty
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* bioontology-support-bounces at 
>> [bioontology-support-bounces at] on behalf of Mobed, 
>> Ketty [Ketty.Mobed at]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:47 AM
>> *To:* Trish Whetzel
>> *Cc:* Lakshminarayanan, Prakash; Wynden, Rob; support at
>> *Subject:* Re: [bioontology-support] Cannot access 1649
>> Thanks Trish.
>> I am now able to pull up the 1649 ontology and pull up mapping terms, 
>> but it is very! slow to pull up the details and finish the mapping.
>> Ketty
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Trish Whetzel [whetzel at]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:58 AM
>> *To:* Mobed, Ketty
>> *Cc:* support at; Wynden, Rob; Lakshminarayanan, Prakash
>> *Subject:* Re: Cannot access 1649
>> Hi Ketty,
>> I am able to view the ontology. Although I am seeing slowness in 
>> loading some terms and am checking with the sysadmin/developers about 
>> this. Can you re-start your browser and clear the cache to see if 
>> that helps?
>> Trish
>> On Aug 9, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Mobed, Ketty wrote:
>>> Hi Trish,
>>> Help, high priority! I uploaded a new version of ontology ID 1649 
>>> (HOM-OSHPD) which is substantially larger than the previous version. 
>>> I need this new version to map to, but I cannot even access the 
>>> terms. It keeps churning and after a while I see the 'We're sorry 
>>> something has gone wrong' message. I have tried this both using 
>>> Safari and Firefox with the same result. Could it be the size of the 
>>> ontology?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ketty
>> _______________________________________________
>> bioontology-support mailing list
>> bioontology-support at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the bioontology-support mailing list