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] Managing Annotation Properties in P4

Hammond, Tony t.hammond at nature.com
Mon Nov 29 00:12:00 PST 2010


Hi Alan:

Many thanks for that explanation. I kind of wondered.

So, DC is promoted as a semantic lingua franca on the Web. And yet here it seems that Protege has effectively outlawed it and decided it cannot be applied to objects of discourse, but can only assume the inferior role of "annotating" ontologies. A laudable role certainly, but not centre stage.

Shouldn't the ontology maker be the one to make that call?

Cheers,

Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: protege-owl-bounces at lists.stanford.edu on behalf of Alan Ruttenberg
Sent: Mon 11/29/2010 2:46 AM
To: User support for the Protege-OWL editor
Subject: Re: [protege-owl] Managing Annotation Properties in P4
 
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Hammond, Tony <t.hammond at nature.com>wrote:

>  Hi:
>
> I am using P4.1.0 (build 213) on a Mac and am having problems understanding
> how to manage annotation properties. Whenever I import an ontology or an RDF
> document (RDF/XML or RDF/TTL) it seems that simple DC properties are
> automatically translated to annotation properties. Is there any way to
> override this behaviour so that I can treat DC properties as basic datatype
> properties?
>
Regrettably this is built in to the OWLAPI that protege uses. I submitted a
bug report and to my surprise the developer closed the bug with "wontfix",
despite it being  not part of the OWL spec. Here's the ticket.

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=595534&aid=2975913&group_id=90989

For this and some other reasons I landed up building my own build of
protege/owlapi. Unfortunately it's a few months out of date by now, though
it might be of some use - let me know and I'll send you a pointer. If you
are up for doing your own build, I can send you the patches to the OWLAPI.

I think the protege developers could undo this if they have the will.

Best,
Alan



>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony
>
> ********************************************************************************
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> ********************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4695 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/attachments/20101129/ec1ced4b/attachment.dat>


More information about the protege-owl mailing list