Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Unique cannonical serialization (using Subversion or some such)
epeterson at globalinfotek.com
Thu Mar 19 09:00:48 PDT 2009
He didn't forget.
But I/he noticed that the 1700 diffs were individual lines rather than diff regions ;^)
Regardless, thanks for the help!
From: protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu on behalf of Tania Tudorache
Sent: Wed 3/18/2009 7:14 PM
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Unique cannonical serialization (using Subversion or some such)
I'm wondering if Eric forgot to check the "Sort alphabetically" check
box. That would explain the many differences when using the native writer.
In any case, Protege 4 is the way to go.
Thomas Russ wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Eric Peterson wrote:
>>> Instead, you can use the native writer which you can configure from
>>> menu -> Preferences -> Experimental native writer. If you will also
>>> enable the 'Sort resources alphabetically' checkbox, then the output
>>> will be repeatable across different Protege work sessions.
>> I tried this and had about 1700 diffs resulting from about 30
>> additive edits on my part and a handful on my colleagues part. But
>> maybe you didn't mean that this was sufficient for a total solution.
> Wow, was it really that bad?
> I might have expected something like that for the change-over from the
> Jena writer to the experimental one, but not for diffs from just the
> experimental writer.
> Oh, well. I'm glad you found a solution with Protege 4.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
protege-owl mailing list
protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl