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] First question, and a test

Jonathan Carter jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com
Tue Mar 30 01:55:45 PDT 2010


Sorry for not responding earlier.

When using Protege in client-server mode, as a client you cannot edit  
the forms. Normally, what I've done is edit the forms to meet my  
requirements in stand alone mode. Then start the server and have my  
users update the ontology using the forms that I defined. You can  
obviously customise these as much as you need BUT all clients will see  
the same form layout - not personalised per client.

Hope this helps

Jonathan
_______________________________________

Jonathan Carter
Enterprise Architecture Solutions Ltd
_______________________________________


Proud sponsors of The Essential Project.
The free open-source Enterprise Architecture Management Platform
www.enterprise-architecture.org
_______________________________________

On 23 Mar 2010, at 14:28, Peris Brodsky wrote:

> I'm (thinking of) using Frames, too, so what you're telling me  
> applies.
>
> I suppose a knowledge editor wouldn't need to browse the classes and  
> slots, but it might be handy to have the documentation of these  
> elements available.  Unless that's already there in the instance  
> tab, and I've missed it.
>
> In this mode, is there any easy way for the ontology/form editor to  
> distribute customized forms to the knowledge editors?  From what  
> I've read, the server does not handle these.  Forms seem to be  
> treated as personalization items (i.e., client-side data).
>
> -Peris
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Carter <jonathan.carter at e-asolutions.com 
> > wrote:
> Not sure if the latest version provides that level of access control.
>
> In multiuser mode, certain things are turned off - the forms editor,  
> for example - which helps.
>
> I use Protege in a similar way and have found that by turning off  
> the Classes tab and the Slots tab in the Project hides the editing  
> of the Class structure. Note that I'm using Protege Frames which  
> separates the definitions of Classes and Instances. Not sure about  
> OWL.
> In practice, this hiding of the Classes tab seems to work well for  
> populating the Instances only in the onotology. Editing of the  
> Classes is done in a stand one mode, allowing the forms to be edited  
> when the classes are being defined or refined.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from my mobile
>
>
> On 22 Mar 2010, at 18:47, Peris Brodsky <perisbrodsky2011 at u.northwestern.edu 
> > wrote:
>
> Greetings, all.
>
> This list doesn't seem to be as busy as advertised, so I'm doing a  
> test of it, in addition to asking my first question.
>
> I'm new to ontology, and to Protégé, so forgive my lack of  
> foundation here.
>
> As I would use Protégé, in a production software medical device  
> product, ontology design and knowledge acquisition would occur on  
> two very different time scales, and be performed by distinct groups  
> of people.
>
> In what mode of usage can Protégé provide an immutable view of an  
> ontology (project), while allowing full mutation of knowledge  
> (instances)?  This sort of implies an authenticated multiuser  
> environment, which the Protégé multi-user mode seems to support.   
> But what I can't tell from the documentation is whether the policy  
> mechanisms can support instance-only editing mode that I describe.
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> -Peris
> -- 
> “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven  
> for?”
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> -- 
> “Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven  
> for?”
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100330/25306974/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list