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    

[p4-feedback] Regarding OWL

Timothy Redmond tredmond at stanford.edu
Thu Mar 10 07:30:20 PST 2011


>> If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated way of going back to using my labels as URIs?  I shifted from 'semantic URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor>  Use URIs as labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.
> I'm not sure whether this feature exists in Protégé -- perhaps someone else here can comment.

I don't think we have this feature.  This question has come up before 
but it hasn't been implemented yet because it is the less common 
direction to go.

-Timothy


On 03/10/2011 04:52 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:
> Hi Melanie,
>
> On 10.03.2011, at 12:24, Melanie Hilario wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info! I followed your instructions to get my ontology in DL notation, but the pdflatex compiler stumbled on the first URI and stopped with an error message "Inserted missing $" (my guess is that it was taking the Protege-generated URI for a math expression, although it wasn't purely numerical -- it had a 4-letter prefix followed by 8 digits).
> That's evidence that the LaTeX renderer isn't very robust. It's never been intended as an "official" renderer equal to those that save ontologies in one of the standard OWL syntaxes, but clearly it shouldn't have bugs.
>
> The "missing $" error means that LaTeX encountered characters that may only be used in math mode. I suspect that the hash character used in URIs # is one of those. We need to fix this in the LaTeX renderer, which is part of the OWL API. I'll create a ticket there -- and will probably provide the fix myself, but it can take a few days. If you don't mind showing me the problematic URIs (private message is fine), that could help narrowing the error down.
>
>> Would you know if there is a way of saving an OWL ontology in DL notation, but replacing numerical URIs with the       given annotation labels? This would help both the compiler and the user (with more readable output).
> This sounds helpful indeed. I'd like to discuss this feature request with other OWL API contributors before making the more substantial change.
>
>> If that is not possible, I have a subsidiary question: is there an automated way of going back to using my labels as URIs?  I shifted from 'semantic URIs' to numerical URIs in the past using Protégé's  "Refactor>  Use URIs as labels" command. How can I reverse this process (other than manually)? I appreciate the advantages of using auto URIs, but they make ontologies hard to decipher when visualized elsewhere than in Protégé.
> I'm not sure whether this feature exists in Protégé -- perhaps someone else here can comment.
>
> Cheers
>
> Thomas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Thomas Schneider
> Universität Bremen, FB 03
> MZH, Raum 3100
> Postfach 330440
> 28334 Bremen
> Germany
> +49 421 218-64432
> http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~ts/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tooting Bec (n.)
> A car behind which one draws up at the traffic lights and hoots at when the lights go green before realizing that the car is parked and there is no one inside.
>
> Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff
>
> _______________________________________________
> p4-feedback mailing list
> p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback




More information about the p4-feedback mailing list