[protege-discussion] slot facet changes not prophagating

[Tom Cloyd]

On 03/26/2012 04:06 PM, Timothy Redmond wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
Terrific. I'll give it a look. It all sounds very supportive of my 
objectives, both short and long term.

Tom
>
>
>
> 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/20120326/5a40ba0f/attachment-0001.html>