Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Protege versions
inbumif at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 1 22:35:08 PST 2009
Your answers were really helpful. Thanks
--- On Wed, 1/28/09, Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu> wrote:
From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Protege versions
To: "User support for the Protege-OWL editor" <protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
Cc: inbumif at yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 7:16 PM
Thomas Russ gives a good answer but I will expand on this a bit. My usual
recommendation is to use Protege 4 unless you need some feature in Protege 3.4.
Protege 4 is where the future is and it provides a much more consistent
representation of OWL content.
Unfortunately for you, I think that you are new to Protege so this doesn't
help too much. So I would modify this, try both but favor Protege 4.
The difference between the owl versions should not be too much of an issue.
OWL 2.0 is to a very large extent backwards compatible. (Can't remember any
ontologies that load in Protege 3 but not in Protege 4. But there are many that
load in Protege 4 but not in Protege 3.) OWL 2.0 has some very nice features
and is also the future of OWL.
On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:58 AM, Ina Bumshtein wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> As I understand after reading mailing list archive all tree available
Protege versions are in use. At this moment I'm using 3.4 beta, but I'm
not sure if it was the correct choice (even after reading protege wiki
comparison). May be you could tell me what you used and what you think is the
proper choice. At this moment I'm searching for arguments why it's
better to use one or another tool version.
> The main difference of 3.4 beta and 4.0 is the OWL version, but I
couldn't fined any detail comparison.
> Thanks a lot,
> Ina Bumshtein
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl