[protege-discussion] slot facet changes not prophagating

[Timothy Redmond]

>
> Finally, that multiple users could modify the same ontology via a 
> client-server setup was appealing (although I do not need this at the 
> moment, and have no immediate-future scenarios likely to require it).

This is still available for Protege 3 OWL and also with Web-Protege.  
The server setup for Protege 3 OWL is exactly the same for Protege 3 
Frames.   In addition, if you could setup Web-Protege then clients could 
connect and modify the ontology with only a normal browser.

-Timothy



On 3/26/12 1:41 PM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
> On 03/26/2012 01:08 PM, Timothy Redmond wrote:
>> On 3/26/12 5:55 AM, Tom Cloyd wrote:
>>> I'm working out my first ontology, and have run into a problem for 
>>> which I can find no answer. I'm running ver. 3.4.8 on Kubuntu Linux 
>>> 11.10.
>>
>> My recommendation would be to use the OWL language for a first 
>> ontology because
>>
>>  1. The Protege frames language is specific to Protege and is only
>>     understood by Protege.  In contrast the OWL language is a w3
>>     recommendation and has gained traction with many tools.
>>  2. The Protege frames language has never been given a semantics
>>     which makes many questions about what the tool should be doing
>>     difficult to decide.
>>  3. Protege 3 frames is slowly getting phased out.  There are fewer
>>     people using it now and these people are largely experts who have
>>     been using it for some time and have not yet decided to convert
>>     to OWL.
>>
> Thank you for this. I've been over the decision of which to use about 
> 3 times, and frankly was unable to decide with any real confidence. 
> "Frames" seems readily (if superficially) understandable, and that was 
> attractive. In addition, it seemed reasonable that it might be a 
> decent foundation for a later switch to OWL. That was my thinking, 
> anyway, so I was getting started with Frames.
>
> Finally, that multiple users could modify the same ontology via a 
> client-server setup was appealing (although I do not need this at the 
> moment, and have no immediate-future scenarios likely to require it).
>
> So, I'm today switching to OWL. I have no real data in my Frames 
> ontology - still setting things up, so the switch is easiest now.
>
> Thank for the recommendation, as well as for the trouble you took to 
> try to replicate the problem. Sorry it didn't replicate. Something's 
> clearly amiss somewhere, but now it doesn't matter - at least in my 
> case. And for the record, I was starting from scratch; I was not doing 
> a project inclusion.
>
> Thanks again - for the thorough, helpful, and speedy response. I'm 
> excited to have the chance to work with this tool.
>
> Tom
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Tom Cloyd / tc at tomcloyd.com / (435) 272-3332
>>
>> 1.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I set up a slot with a cardinality of "required - at least 1", and a 
>>> default value that was a string.
>>>
>>> What I wanted was for an editable default value to appear in class 
>>> instances using the slot.
>>>
>>> PROBLEM #1: What I got was a NON-editable default value.
>> I didn't replicate this.  I did the following steps:
>>
>>  1. I started Protege and created a new Protege Files (.pont and
>>     .pins) project.
>>  2. I created a class A as a subclass of :THING in the classes tab
>>  3. I went to the Slots tab and created a new slot, p, gave it a
>>     default value of "hello world", gave it a domain of A and made
>>     this cardinality required and at least 1.
>>  4. I went to the Instances tab and created a new instance of A.  It
>>     had a default value of "hello world".
>>  5. I changed the default value.
>>
>> Everything worked and the ontology is the attached ontology called 
>> Version1.*
>>> That isn't acceptable, so I went back to edit the slot, removing the 
>>> "required", and the default value.
>>
>> I did this.  This does not change the existing instance but when I 
>> create a new instance the old default value does not take effect.
>>
>>>
>>> PROBLEM #2: Returning to my class instance, the changes were not 
>>> reflected, and the problem of the non-editable default value could 
>>> not be fixed (at least by me). My instance was thus not unusable. I 
>>> deleted it.
>>>
>>
>> The existing instances are not changed but I was still able to edit 
>> the p slot value.  The ontology that I got at this point is attached 
>> as Version2.
>>
>>> PROBLEM #3: It got worse: I created a new instance, only to discover 
>>> that nothing had been changed. I still got a non-editable default 
>>> value. Now it appears that my class has to be reconfigured. What if 
>>> I have 1000 instances, and deleting the slot was not an option?
>>
>> When I create new instances there is no default value for the p-slot.
>>
>>>
>>> Can anyone tell me what's going on, and how to fix/prevent these 
>>> problems?
>>
>> The one thing that I can think of is that you are doing some sort of 
>> project inclusion.  There are some rules for what can be changed and 
>> what cannot be changed when you do project inclusion.
>>
>> -Timothy.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any assistance you can offer!
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Tom Cloyd / tc at tomcloyd.com / (435) 272-3332
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-discussion/attachments/20120326/ecdbce0b/attachment-0001.html>