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

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Mon Nov 12 11:09:39 PST 2012


On 11/12/2012 07:50 AM, Hanno Wunderlich wrote:
> 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).

I wouldn't expect that copying of the forms would solve the problem, 
because the logic for inclusion of forms does a little bit more (forms 
inheritance, overrides, etc.). But, if you got the forms to work 
properly, that is the biggest hurdle! You could now open this new pprj 
file in Protege and set the display slots (at the most generic level) 
and save again. You could possibly only copy some of the lines from the 
included project to the including one, but I think that would be more work.

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

I am sure there were minor fixes. The loading of the remote pprj files 
was a bigger change that we should have documented. We did not expect 
that it would affect many users.

Is there a reason why you can't work with Protege 3.4.7? It seems this 
would be the least hassle for you.

Tania

>
> - Hanno
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Timothy Redmond 
> <tredmond at stanford.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 list
>>>         protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu  <mailto: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
>>         <mailto: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  <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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/20121112/bd320315/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the protege-discussion mailing list