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 XMLBackend bug?

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Mon Mar 24 12:20:55 PDT 2008


Hi Mark,

Thank you for the bug report. We'll investigate this and get back to you.

It looks like Protege does generate the duplicate definitions in the xml 
file (at save time), but these don't seem to affect the functioning of 
Protege. I suppose the parser drops the duplicate definitions.

The XML Backend is very important to us and we would like to drop the 
"Experimental" tag from it. Unfortunately, other items with higher 
priority have to be done first..

Cheers,
Tania



M Flood wrote:
> Greetings all:
>
> I'm confronting what appears to be a bug in the Experimental XML Backend
> for Protege 3.3.1.  I cannot find any references to this issue on the
> Wiki or user forums (perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places).
>
> When I save my frames ontology as XML, I frequently get lots of
> duplicate slot declarations on the class elements, as is the case for
> the "para" <class> declaration in this snippet:
>
> ====================================================================
> <?xml version="1.0" ?>
>
> <knowledge_base
> 	xmlns="http://protege.stanford.edu/xml"
> 	xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> 	xsi:schemaLocation="http://protege.stanford.edu/xml
>                     http://protege.stanford.edu/xml/schema/protege.xsd">
>
> 	<class>
> 		<name>SIMULATION</name>
> 		<type>:STANDARD-CLASS</type>
> 		<own_slot_value>
> 			<slot_reference>:ROLE</slot_reference>
> 			<value value_type="string">Abstract</value>
> 		</own_slot_value>
> 		<own_slot_value>
> 			<slot_reference>:DOCUMENTATION</slot_reference>
> 			<value value_type="string">Version 0.1</value>
> 		</own_slot_value>
> 		<superclass>:THING</superclass>
> 	</class>
>
> 	<class>
> 		<name>para</name>
> 		<type>:STANDARD-CLASS</type>
> 		<own_slot_value>
> 			<slot_reference>:ROLE</slot_reference>
> 			<value value_type="string">Concrete</value>
> 		</own_slot_value>
> 		<superclass>discussion_element</superclass>
> 		<template_slot>text</template_slot>
> 		<template_slot>text</template_slot>
> 		<template_slot>text</template_slot>
> 		<template_slot>text</template_slot>
> 		<template_slot>text</template_slot>
> 	</class>
>
> blah blah blah ...
>
> </knowledge_base>
> ====================================================================
>
> It may be relevant that I define the classes in one ontology, which is
> then included in a second ontology that comprises most of the instances
> -- basically a TBox/ABox dichotomy.  The snippet above is from the
> latter (with all of the defined instances elided, obviously).
>
> Is this a known issue?  Are there workarounds?  If I download a more
> recent release (e.g., the 3.4 beta), will I be better off?  Also, when
> will the XMLBackend no longer be "experimental"?  (I think it's great.)
>
> Lastly, please let me know if I shouldn't bother you directly with
> questions like this.
>
> Many thanks in advance -- Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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