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 and Source Control

Jonathan Carter jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com
Mon Nov 10 01:56:34 PST 2008


Thanks for this - I agree, you can't rely on the order of the items in  
the files. I do use an XML extract but I haven't checked how it  
changes between changes to the ontology. As far as I remember, the  
experimental XML does all the class and slot things first and then all  
the instances. However, given that a change could be to a class or an  
instance or a slot, even  a small change could have a larger change on  
the resulting XML.

What I would recommend for doing a 'diff' on Protege projects would be  
the diff capability on the Prompt tab. That's very good.

Regards

Jonathan
__________________________________________
Jonathan Carter - Head of Technical Architecture
Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd
Mobile: +44 (0) 7904 198295
Email: jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com
__________________________________________

Assess your EA maturity at:
www.enterprise-architecture.com/EAvaluator
__________________________________________

On 10 Nov 2008, at 08:58, Bertram Stuart wrote:

> The problem with zipping them (or at least the problem we have with
> Subversion source control on Protege files) is that you'd still end up
> with files that you can't easily compare. Protege has no concept of
> ordering, and so can end up reorganising things at random. That means
> you may only have changed one character in a string value of a slot,  
> but
> your diff with source control will show thousands of changes as
> everything gets moved around.
>
> In terms of solutions, we've not really found one. All we do is put it
> in to source control as-is (because they're just text files and
> Subversion can handle text files) and lose the ability to diff the
> files. We've yet to check whether the experimental Protege XML files  
> are
> more diff-able, although even if they're not then an XLST might be  
> able
> to re-order without losing data.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stuart Bertram
>
>
> Jonathan Carter wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Normally, when I used Protege with more than 1 user, I use the
>> client-server mode, which works well for multi-users and can track
>> changes etc. However, I appreciate that if you are working
>> collaboratively but offline, that this isn't going to work for you.
>>
>> One option to try would be to zip up the PINS, PONT and PPRJ files  
>> into
>> an archive that a version control tool could manage as some kind of  
>> 'blob'.
>>
>> However, what I've done in lieu of anything too technical is just
>> applying good practice with using the project - passing the 3 files
>> around and before releasing my work back to the group doing a
>> File->SaveAs and manually updating the version number - Protege
>> synchronises the 3 files from that perspective. So, I received
>> project_v1.0.pprj, work on it and save it back as project_v. 
>> 1.1.pprj (or
>> something) before lodging it with the group.
>>
>> Clearly, you need to organise a way of "checking out" the project for
>> editing, but in practice, for a small-ish group this is workable. For
>> larger groups, the multi-user Protege is really the best way forward.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> Jonathan
>> __________________________________________
>> Jonathan Carter - Head of Technical Architecture
>> Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> Assess your EA maturity at:
>> www.enterprise-architecture.com/EAvaluator
>> <http://www.enterprise-architecture.com/EAvaluator>
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> On 7 Nov 2008, at 17:06, Matt Spitz wrote:
>>
>>> I'm doing a group project using Protege, and as I've learned with  
>>> all
>>> group projects, the first step is source control.  Given that the
>>> Protege files are all text-based, I held out a lot of hope for being
>>> able to use version control.  Sadly, I was mistaken.
>>>
>>> It'd be really neat if the Protege files were formatted in such a  
>>> way
>>> that source control software won't barf on them.  Does anyone have  
>>> any
>>> suggestions as to how to get around this and be able to use my
>>> ontology files (pons, pins, pprj) in a source control setting?
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> -Matt Spitz
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> protege-discussion mailing list
>>> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
>>> <mailto: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
>
> The information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent
> correspondence is private and is intended solely for the intended
> recipient(s).  The information in this communication may be
> confidential and/or legally privileged.  Nothing in this e-mail is
> intended to conclude a contract on behalf of QinetiQ or make QinetiQ
> subject to any other legally binding commitments, unless the e-mail
> contains an express statement to the contrary or incorporates a  
> formal Purchase Order.
>
> For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying,
> distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance
> on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Emails and other electronic communication with QinetiQ may be
> monitored and recorded for business purposes including security, audit
> and archival purposes.  Any response to this email indicates consent
> to this.
>
> Telephone calls to QinetiQ may be monitored or recorded for quality
> control, security and other business purposes.
>
> QinetiQ Limited
> Registered in England & Wales: Company Number:3796233
> Registered office: 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD, United Kingdom
> Trading address: Cody Technology Park, Cody Building, Ively Road,  
> Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, United Kingdom
> http://www.qinetiq.com/home/notices/legal.html
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20081110/2114b0a2/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list