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-owl] API's

Anthony McCallum mccallum.anthony at gmail.com
Sun Jan 3 19:29:29 PST 2010


Ok, that's what I was looking for.  Thanks!

On 3-Jan-10, at 3:04 PM, protege-owl-request at lists.stanford.edu wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:07:04 -0800
> From: Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu>
> To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
> 	<protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu>
> Subject: Re: [protege-owl] API's
> Message-ID: <4B3FEDB8.90407 at stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Anthony McCallum wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> I have a quick question.  What exactly is the difference between the
>> OWL API and the Protege-OWL API?
> The Protege (3) OWL API is an older API with a long history.  It was
> started while the (DAML) standard was at a fairly early stage and is
> warped a bit from the attempt to get an OWL API to work on top of
> frames.  The primary motivation for using this API is that you might
> need some features that come with Protege 3 that you would not be able
> to access with the Manchester OWL API.
>
> The Manchester OWL API is a more recent api which is very elegantly
> written and is based closely on standards.  I think that this is an
> excellent OWL API because the coding is done at the level  
> abstraction of
> the OWL specification.  The Manchester OWL api is what is used by  
> Protege 4.
>
> -TImothy
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20100103/bdd03e7f/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list