Search Mailing List Archives
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl