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-discussion Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14

Girish Joglekar gjogleka at purdue.edu
Fri Nov 11 06:18:20 PST 2011


Hi Matthew,

Thank you very much for the pointers. I will certainly study the papers. 
A quick glance revealed that they are all 2011 publications. I am 
surprised to find that with so much work going on in semantic web where 
ontologies serve at the key building blocks, there is not much available 
to address the migration issue. Have people done it mostly the hard way 
in the past, or have they done it right the first time?

Does this mean that the plug-ins are available only for 4.0? Should I 
migrate to 4.0? How will the move impact the current code I have? How 
different is the Manchester API from Protege's OWL-API?

Thanks again for your help.

Girish
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:10:33 -0800
> From: Matthew Horridge<matthew.horridge at stanford.edu>
> To: User support for Core Protege and the Protege-Frames editor
> 	<protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] maintaining ontologies
> Message-ID:<98910718-1747-472F-B176-799A62A416CF at stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Girish,
>
> This is quite a big topic.  There is quite a lot of research on ontology versioning and evolution and a fair number of tools that support tasks related to these topics.  Here are some things related to Protege 4....
>
> Some recent work, that is very nice, is work by Rafael Gon?alves at the university of Manchester - he looks at analysing changes between different versions of ontologies.  Here's a pointer to various publications on this:
>
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~goncalvj/publications.html
>
> Timothy Redmond and Natasha Noy have also done some recent work in this area and have produced a Protege 4 plugin.  Here's their paper
>
> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-784/evodyn6.pdf
>
> and here's their plugin
>
> http://smi-protege.stanford.edu/repos/protege/protege4/plugins/org.protege.editor.owl.diff/trunk/
>
> There's also the OWLDiff plugin:
>
> http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/OWLDiff
>
>
> In terms of versioning with SVN, there were some recent posts on the Protege mailing lists about this.  A search through the archives should reveal some interesting posts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Nov 2011, at 05:32, Girish Joglekar wrote:
>
>    
>> If I change an ontology (add/delete/rearrange properties etc.) how do I systematically migrate old ontologies to the new definitions. I realize that if I add a class or a property, I do not have to do anything. But otherwise, I will have to do something programmatically. Is there a users manual which explains maintenance of ontologies in general? Also, how does svn fit into these schemes? I prefer to use Eclipse/Windows development platform. Thanks much.
>> Girish Joglekar
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>      
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:20:38 +0100
> From: Daniel Domazer<danieldomazer at googlemail.com>
> To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Subject: [protege-discussion] Constraint - compare instances
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAKEHcg4rfSV0c7WYaw=vzx_bFNZJz9ik3F16yS0kO_FmRh3ZtA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem concerning constraints again. I have the class
> :MULTI-LING-TEXT, which has slots of string for each language,
> and an abstract base class from which others derive. This base
> class has a slot named Description of :MULTI-LING-TEXT instances.
>
> What I want to check with the constraint is that for every instance
> of :MULTI-LING-TEXT should exist an instance of a subclass of
> AbstractBaseClass which uses this :MULTI-LING-TEXT instance.
>
>
>
> This is what I got so far:
>
> (defrange ?multitext :FRAME :MULTI-LING-TEXT)
> (defrange ?base :FRAME AbstractBaseClass)
>
> (forall ?multitext
>    (exists ?base
>      (= (Description ?base) ?multitext)))
>
> This iterates over all subclasses of AbstractBaseClass, right?
> Do I understand it right that (Description ?base) returns the
> instance and that this is compared to ?multitext if they are the
> same instance (not the content)? The documentation is not really
> clear to me.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel Domazer
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20111111/08370cee/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-discussion
>
>
> End of protege-discussion Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14
> **************************************************
>    



More information about the protege-discussion mailing list