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 3.4.8: Forms broken for included Projects on Protege Server

Hanno Wunderlich hannowun at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 04:50:51 PST 2012


Hi Tania, Hi Timothy,

i've tested if copying the forms information from the included project to
the other one (and deleting the complete forms information in the included
project afterwards) solves the problem.

Without success. Though the forms are displayed correctly the display slots
are not used at all. All instances are displayed with their default display
slot (e.g. instance_1234567).

Are there any other changes between 3.4.7 and 3.4.8 that are not listed in
the release notes?

- Hanno


On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>wrote:

>  On 11/10/2012 05:22 AM, Hanno Wunderlich wrote:
>
> Hi Tania,
>
>  thanks for the information. Unfortunately it was planned to do a
> companywide rollout of Protege 3.4.8. I think i will have to copy the forms
> information from the included Project to the other one (I already have a
> little tool that does the work).
>
>  Is there any possibility to get more detailed information what has
> changed between the releases. The 3.4.8 release notes did not mention any
> changes on the client-server part of protege.
>
>
> The previous method of transferring the project information from the
> client to the server was always very slow.  It involved numerous
> interactions between the client and the server.  We had been aware of this
> problem for some time but for most pprj files the overhead was acceptable.
> But we had some complaints that for large .pprj files, the startup of the
> Protege client was impossibly slow.
>
> What we did was to implement a new mechanism where the .pprj files are
> simply copied from the server to the client and parsed on the client.  This
> mechanism runs far faster but it leads to the difficulty that you are
> having with imported forms.
>
> -Timothy
>
>
>
>
>
>  Hanno
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Tania Tudorache <tudorache at stanford.edu>wrote:
>
>>  Hi Hanno,
>>
>> Indeed, the forms inclusion is not working after Protege 3.4.7 version.
>> We have implemented a new way of sending the pprj info from the server to
>> the client, which is much faster than before. You will notice that clients
>> load much faster now. The part of code that did the forms inclusion had to
>> be dropped in the new implementation. Adding it back would require some
>> effort.
>>
>> My suggestion is to use an "older" version of Protege, like 3.4.7 that
>> still uses the original way of loading the remote pprj. The other changes
>> we have done to the code are quite minor, so you would still be up to date,
>> and have the forms working.
>>
>> Tania
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/09/2012 05:57 AM, Hanno Wunderlich wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  i'm currently testing to switch our Protege Server from version 3.4.0
>> to 3.4.8.
>>  We are heavily using projects that are including other projects. For
>> example we have a master project holding the classes, slots and the form
>> information. Then there is a second project including the master project,
>> that holds only the instances.
>>
>>  If I open the second project as a local project all forms are correct.
>> If I host the second project on a protege server an access it from a
>> client, the forms are broken.
>>
>>  I have also reproduced this behaviour with a fresh protege installation
>> and a newly created project that includes the newspaper project from the
>> examples.
>>
>>  I haven't checked the behaviour on versions between 3.4.0 and 3.4.8.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>  Hanno
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> protege-discussion mailing listprotege-discussion at lists.stanford.eduhttps://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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-discussion mailing listprotege-discussion at lists.stanford.eduhttps://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/20121112/733def17/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list