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] Incremental Instance Loading

O'Neill, Dennis doneill at marathonoil.com
Tue Mar 25 05:54:51 PDT 2008


I agree on the usefulness of the DB backend for on-going management.

I've taken a quick look at the Protégé source. Is there an architecture/design document that describes the overall structure? It seems that using the existing code that loads the .pins file would be a good place to start, but it is not obvious where this is done.

Thanks,

Dennis M. O'Neill
SAIC
Room 2069B
doneill at marathonoil.com
(281) 236-5690
-----Original Message-----
From: protege-discussion-bounces at mailman.stanford.edu [mailto:protege-discussion-bounces at mailman.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Russ
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:09 PM
To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Incremental Instance Loading


On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:01 PM, O'Neill, Dennis wrote:
> Samson,
>
> It is not a case of needing to load instances on demand, but rather  
> to programmatically create them on demand from an external source.
>
> For example, new oil wells are drilled in an oil field on a regular  
> basis. My Protégé system has complete information as of a certain  
> date (e.g., March 31, 2008). On April 30, I want to upload (new)  
> information about the wells that have been drilled in the month of  
> April. How can I load them into my existing knowledge base without  
> keying them in manually?
>
> A "Load Instances" command (from a validly structured .pins file)  
> would serve the purpose quite nicely.

Well, you could always build a plugin to do what you want.  Perhaps a  
tab plugin or just a plugin that adds a menu item.  You could then  
have your own custom Java code that reads a file of your choice and  
uses the Protege API to insert the new instances.  You would thus get  
complete control.

Although the database for storing the instances sounds like it might  
be a good idea as well, since then you could do the incremental  
updates and let the DB backend worry about the persistence.


_______________________________________________
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