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] uri, frames, owl or not

Richard Bogosian rwbogosian at
Mon Aug 2 11:26:04 PDT 2010

I solved the problem. The Ontology IRI does not accept back slash; I used a disk location with forward slash and the Continue button was enabled. Thanks to all for your input.

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:46:02 -0700
From: tredmond at
To: protege-discussion at
Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] uri, frames, owl or not

An ontology does not  have to be published and the URI you choose doesn't  have to be web based.  The URI you choose can simply  be a name for the ontology.  There are some words in the OWL 2 specification that an ontology  "should" be  accessible through its IRI but in other places it is implicitly understood that this is not a reliable mechanism.


On 08/02/2010 09:36 AM, Richard Bogosian wrote: 

I am new to Protege and have a question regarding Frames and OWL versions. I downloaded what I believed to be Protege-Frames 4.1 Beta. When I run the program, it insists that I create a new OWL or select an existing OWL ontology. The part that bothers me is that when I select "create new", I am forced to provide a web-based uri. What if I don't want to publish anything to the internet. Is there some way around this requirement? If I am working on proprietary information, I won't want to risk putting it on any website. I am going thru the documentation but so far I've seen nothing that addresses this issue.

protege-discussion mailing list
protege-discussion at

Instructions for unsubscribing:

_______________________________________________ protege-discussion mailing list protege-discussion at Instructions for unsubscribing: 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the protege-discussion mailing list