[protege-discussion] Fw: WebProtege

[Tania Tudorache]

Hi Anna,

This is correct. It is just a mater on how the equivalent classes are 
shown in the tree. For example, if A is equivalent to C, it means that A 
is a subclass of C and C is also a subclass of A. That is the reason 
that the C is shown as a child node of A, and viceversa: A is a child 
node of C.

Tania



Anna Burla wrote:
> Hello Tania,
> Thanx a lot for your answer!
> I saw that you also answered afterward about infinite loop.
> We will wait for bug fix.
> I have one more issue in web protege:
> Suppose we have class A and he has equivalent class B and son class C.
> Protege (3 and 4) shows this right in the class tree:
> A=C
>       B
> And it appears in Webprotege like this:
> A
>       B
>       C
> The problem is that also equivalent classes and son classes appear at same
> degree of the tree.
> Can u please check this issue?
> Thanx a lot,
> Anna.
>
>
>
>                                                                                                             
>   From:       Tania Tudorache <tudorache at stanford.edu>                                                      
>                                                                                                             
>   To:         User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor                                   
>               <protege-discussion at mailman.stanford.edu>                                                     
>                                                                                                             
>   Date:       05/11/2009 19:49                                                                              
>                                                                                                             
>   Subject:    Re: [protege-discussion] WebProtege                                                           
>                                                                                                             
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> We have a collaborator that implemented a big part of the WebProtege
> backend with the OWL-API, but it is not yet released. We do plan to have it
> soon. As much as possible we would like to use more of the OWL-API. There
> are some complex functionalities that we do not have yet working with the
> OWL-API (e.g. collaboration, extensions to SWRL, etc.), and this is an
> impediment.
>
> On the other hand, you should be able to use most Protege 4 ontologies in
> Protege 3 and WebProtege. There shouldn't be an infinite cycle in P3. Can
> you send us an example OWL file with this problem? You can send the file
> also off-line.
>
> The Login problem is fixed in the next WebProtege release. The Login button
> is now in the top right corner of WebProtege (similar to the iGoogle page),
> and it is single sign-on for all ontologies, which makes sense.
>
> The list of ontologies that are shown in MyWebProtege tab are also
> controlled by the access policies: you will only see the ontologies for
> which you have read access.
>
> We plan to have the new WebProtege release sometimes this month.
>
> Tania
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anna Burla" <ANNABU at il.ibm.com>
> To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2009 7:53:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: [protege-discussion] WebProtege
>
>
> Hello,
> I am using Protege 4 for creating and viewing our ontology.
> I want to use WebProtege and found few problematic issues:.
> 1) WebProtege works only with Protege 3.4 that doesn't support well owl
> files that were created in protege 4. It creates infinite loops in classes
> tree. Is it known issue?
> 2) On "My web protege" page there is no "login" icon. And only when I enter
> some project, I see "login" option.
> Now if I logg in I still don't see projects that have "read/write" access
> for specific user and not "world" group. How can I by-pass this problem?
> All that I want is to define project that not all "world" group can see,
> but only few users.
> Thanx a lot in advance,
> Anna.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>