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] Protege Frames - ideas on implementing missing features?

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Tue Feb 27 17:19:01 PST 2007


Jens,

Jens Selbach wrote:
> some access control can be achieved by client server mode in protege
> 3.x. Separates write users 
> from read only users. 
> I'd like to decide write access by protege class or even by protege
> instances, e.g. if a
> user (represented by a instance of class Person) is linked to that
> instance.
>
>   

Please read my post on user roles from some weeks before: 
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.ontology.protege.general/15449
We will soon provide a more configurable way of defining and working 
with user roles from the API.

> change history, change control:
> ChangeTab has all the information, but it's hard to read. I'd like to
> see change history in
> context of a single instance, e.g. a button "view history" within the
> instance form.
>
>   

We already have a prototype of a collaborative Protege, which will 
support many of the collaborative tasks, such as annotating changes in 
an ontology, or annotations on an ontology components itself, browsing 
the annotations in the context of a class, searching and filtering 
between the annotations, discussion threads, etc. We will distribute the 
prototype as a plugin to the existing Protege sometimes in March.

> To maintain a vaild ontology and allow many users editing, would it be a
> good idea to 
> allow users to make changes to a copy of the ontology and then apply
> these changes to
> a controlled ontology by a responsible change manager through PROMPT
> plugin e.g. once per day? 
>   

Yes, this is one possible collaborative editing scenario. In standalone 
mode, you can use the archive/revert feature to save different versions 
of an ontology and then use Prompt to compare them.
In client-server mode, all the clients see the changes right away since 
they are working on the same copy of the knowledge base.


> This could  prevent users from deleting large parts of the ontology.
> Could be a workaround, 
> if strict access control policies can no be enforced through the
> application.
>
> The solution by Java Function Calls seems to be an interesting framework
> extending features
> of protege ( http://www.oekon.de/protege/jcalls/index.html ) and migh help? 
>
>   

Yes, the Java Function Calls is a very powerful technique you can use to 
customize Protege. However, I would start first with the "classical" 
types of plugins that Protege supports and then I would try out the Java 
Function Calls.

Another very easy and quick way of generating an application based on an 
ontology is to use the Java code generators from Protege, like JSave. 
Another nice feature is that you can do rapid prototyping by using the 
Protege scripts tab.

Tania



> Thank's for any comments.
> Regards,
> Jens.
> _______________________________________________
> 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