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] Protégé-owl quetions?

kheireddine Houa houakh at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 01:15:09 PST 2010


Thank you Samson for your response,

Kheireddine.

2010/1/16 Samson Tu <swt at stanford.edu>

> On 1/13/2010 6:38 PM, Timothy Redmond wrote:
> ...
>
> Protege Frames is based on an older ontology language. The Protege
>> frames ontology language is applicable in some situations where OWL is
>> difficult to apply (e.g. the closed world assumption but this is whole
>> different story). But the major disadvantage of the Protege frames
>> language is that it is not standardized and there is no semantics. I
>> think that the presence of a standard is very important and would
>> recommend OWL over frames.
>>
>
> I would say that an exception to the OWL recommendation is the situation
> where (1) you are not using description logic, and (2) you are creating and
> managing a lot of instance data in Protege. Protege-frame has better support
> for instance management.
>
> Samson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> 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-owl/attachments/20100117/627625be/attachment.html>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list