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    

[protege-discussion] Source Control Mightmare

Jan Henke jan.henke at deri.org
Thu Feb 1 02:03:11 PST 2007


> However, SCS technology is widely used, and particularly 
> where the ontology is just one part of a complete software 
> system, there is a desire to be able to use only a single 
> tool.  So trying to make the saved files work more easily 
> with SCS tools would be a good thing from the point of view 
> of practice.

Then you might be interested in SemVersion [1].

Quote: "A possible way to compute a semantic diff in RDFS is thus to
materialize the complete entailment (transitive closure) and then perform a
structural diff, like it is done in SemVersion."

Best regards
Jan

[1] Max Völkel, Tudor Groza 
SemVersion: An RDF-based Ontology Versioning System 
In Proceedings of IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, volume 1,
pp. 195-202. IADIS, IADIS, Murcia, Spain, October 2006.
(http://www.xam.de/2006/10-SemVersion-ICIW2006.pdf)











> 
> >
> > Best regards
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: protege-discussion-bounces at mailman.stanford.edu
> >> [mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at mailman.stanford.edu] 
> Im Auftrag 
> >> von Thomas Russ
> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. Jänner 2007 18:59
> >> An: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
> >> Betreff: Re: [protege-discussion] Source Control Mightmare
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 30, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Samson Tu wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Have you tried to do the version comparison and merging using the 
> >>> Prompt plugin that comes with Protege? That's what the plugin is 
> >>> designed to do.
> >>
> >> That certainly helps with the merging step, but it doesn't 
> solve the 
> >> problem of a real impedance mismatch between the somewhat random 
> >> order terms are saved by Protege and the assumption of small, 
> >> incremental and local changes that is made by source 
> control systems 
> >> like CVS or SVN.
> >>
> >> Defining a canonical order in which to save information 
> would greatly 
> >> aid in using such source control tools with Protege 
> ontologies.  This 
> >> would be a big help for large projects, so I need to express my 
> >> support for John's feature request.
> >>
> >> It wouldn't really be all that hard to do, either.  All that is 
> >> required is to decide on the order to save (i.e., Classes or 
> >> Properties/Slots first) and then sort the objects by their name 
> >> before saving.  I have done this for an export plugin I 
> wrote and it 
> >> isn't all that difficult.  An additional sort on template slot 
> >> information for classes will also cause the substructure to be 
> >> sorted.
> >>
> >> That would at least cause the terms to appear in the same 
> order when 
> >> there are no changes and that would go a long way to making the 
> >> resulting files work well with source control tools.
> >>
> >> If there is concern about the cost of sorting the objects 
> each time 
> >> one saves, then this could be addressed by introducing a 
> >> configuration property that determines if one wants sorted 
> output or 
> >> not.  My feeling is that sorting doesn't add much overhead 
> on saving, 
> >> but I haven't used this on very large ontologies.
> >>
> >> But I think this would be a good feature to include in the next 
> >> version of Protege.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> John Patrick wrote:
> >>>> Greetings,
> >>>>
> >>>> I've searched the message archives but have been unable to find 
> >>>> similar problems. I've been using Protege for the last 6
> >> months and
> >>>> have slow started to have more and more issues with how
> >> Protege saves
> >>>> owl files.
> >>>>
> >>>> The project I'm on is maintained in a perforce repository and 
> >>>> branched as required, once a branch is finished or stable it is 
> >>>> merged back into the main branch. The issue comes when 
> you try to 
> >>>> merge owl files.
> >>>> A merge is takes about 3 days, of which over 2.5 days is
> >> just sorting
> >>>> out manually merging the owl files. Identifying changes 
> which have 
> >>>> occurred in both branches and then implementing those changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a way of getting Protege to group and sort 
> >>>> objects/properties/attributes when it saves and owl 
> file. I don't 
> >>>> mind how its ordered or grouped I'd just like some
> >> conformity to how
> >>>> it does it.
> >>>>
> >>>> John Patrick
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> protege-discussion mailing list
> >>>> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> >>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/
> >>>> faq.html#01a.03
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> Samson Tu                    email: swt at stanford.edu
> >>> Senior Research Scientist    web: www.stanford.edu/~swt/
> >>> Stanford Medical Informatics phone: 1-650-725-3391
> >>> Stanford University          fax: 1-650-725-7944
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> protege-discussion mailing list
> >>> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
> >>>
> >>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/
> >>> faq.html#01a.03
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> protege-discussion mailing list
> >> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
> >>
> >> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> >> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > protege-discussion mailing list
> > protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
> >
> > Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/
> > faq.html#01a.03
> 
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
> 
> Instructions for unsubscribing: 
> http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
> 




More information about the protege-discussion mailing list