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

Thomas Russ tar at ISI.EDU
Wed Jan 31 09:41:28 PST 2007


Shifting this also over to OWL, since at least one reply ended up  
there...

On Jan 31, 2007, at 2:24 AM, Jan Henke wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
>
> there can be several different serializations of an ontology all of  
> them
> having the same semantics. Therefore it would be not correct to  
> forbid any
> of them. For this reason, versioning just on the basis of some  
> serialization
> doesn't work for ontologies.

I'm not completely convinced.

Sure, there are different, semantically equivalent serializations
possible, but in practice a given tool will deterministically
produce just one of them.  Protege, for example, will not choose
arbitrarily different serializations each time it saves an ontology.

That opens the door to using a simple solution of choosing the
order of saving objects.  That will generally produce files that
behave much better with respect to source control systems than
the current behavior, in which there the order is determined by
hash code values.

OK, given the strategy of including the full definition of an
object when first mentioned (in the OWL saves), this won't always
work, since a new reference to an existing class or property may
cause it to move in the saved file, but for the bulk of items
in an ontology that don't change between versions, using a
canonical order for writing would allow simple source control
difference matching to work better.

Seeing as how it isn't difficult to implement the sorting step
before writing out the ontology, I think it would be a useful
enhancement.

> However there are approaches for solving this.
> See for instance http://iswc2006.semanticweb.org/items/Noy2006fj.pdf

This is an interesting paper, and certainly does a better job
of addressing the change management issues for ontologies than
a standard source control system (SCS).

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.

>
> 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




More information about the protege-discussion mailing list