Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] Problems with Manchester OWL Editor
alanruttenberg at gmail.com
Sat Nov 20 19:17:19 PST 2010
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Timothy Redmond <tredmond at stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't see this problem with Protege 4.1
>> You are wrong.
> You are right - I was wrong. I was very sloppy in checking things out.
> I think that what is needed here is better validation tools. This
> particular item would be very easy to discover programatically. I suspect
> the OWL api OWL 2 validator would find it. Integrating this type of
> validation with an ontology editor is a bit less trivial but it is
> definitely in the plans. There is a need for better validation because we
> get a fair bit of e-mail on the list with people having trouble with the
> global property hierarchy constraints. Also we are having periodic problems
> with ontologies that do not parse under 1.0 or 2.0 because they use 1.1 rdf
> But I think it is good that the tools try to load and work with problematic
> ontologies. We are seeing such ontologies and people want to work with
> them. In some cases the ontology developers are explicitly resistant to
> making these ontologies OWL 2 compliant. Logging a warning is nice but is
> often not particularly helpful. You could also use layered error levels and
> handlers (ala Jena and Protege 3 OWL) but this is a bit ugly.
a) not disallow them while editing, for the reason you state
b) mark them in a way that lets one immediately know there is a
problem, as with unsatisfiable classes. Perhaps color them orange and
have a popup that says what the problem is.
c) Not send malformed OWL files to a reasoner. GIGO.
> I am curious how rdfs:label became an object property. This is not clear
More information about the protege-owl