Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-dev] [Protege 3.4] Developing a plugin to visualize the FMA. Have a few question
tudorache at stanford.edu
Thu Sep 18 15:23:50 PDT 2014
You probably need to increase the heap size for Protege 5. Edit the
run.sh or run.bat and change the argument -Xmx500M.
I tried it with 4000M, and it loads the FMA owl file in 50 seconds.
You are right, that with the Protege 3 database backend, you would have
a faster load time, but then all operations that would follow
(read/writes) would be slower as they happen in the database. Protege 5
will read the ontology in memory (so you have a longer load time), but
then all following operations would be very fast as they happen in
memory. There is always this trade-off.
I suggested to implement a plugin for Protege 4/5 because this is the
current version. Protege 3 is not under development anymore.
The OWL-API underlying Protege 4/5 is also very well documented and
On 09/16/2014 04:27 PM, Luchen wrote:
> Hi Tania!
> I've tried using the OWL file in Protegé 5 but performance took a noticeable
> hit when dealing with the FMA this way while Protegé 3.4 ran smoothly.
> Though i have no actual knowledge of how either software actually works i'd
> guess that it has something to do with response time of queing a local
> database instance in the case of protege 3.4 (which one of the steps in the
> setup) vs. loading and parsing the .owl file.
> Is there anyway i can get around this? I'm checking the Protege 5
> documentation as we speak just be ready, but would you personally recommend
> developing this plugin for Protegé 4 or 5?
> View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Protege-3-4-Developing-a-plugin-to-visualize-the-FMA-Have-a-few-question-tp4661449p4661451.html
> Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> protege-dev mailing list
> protege-dev at lists.stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-dev