On Property Domain

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

On Property Domain

Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
Hi Protege-OWL enthusiasts,

I have a suggestion/remark on the formation of property domain by Protege OWL plug-in.

To my understand, it's more intuitive that multiple domain classes be combined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e. classes on the list of property domain on the property panel will be treated as a "unionOf" (or "or" in the description logic terminology). This is also the case even when we have only one property domain class. The single class will be wrapped by an "or" tag, in case of DIG (This is used to communicate with most DL reasoning backends).

Semantically, this is not a problem. Syntactically, it is also not a problem as long as that the reasoner can handle disjunction (unionOf). However, we are implementing a DL reasoner for sub-Boolean logic that does not allow for disjunction but for property domain constraints. This way, our reasoner CEL was hindered from providing to the Protege users the expressivity of property domain.

So, what I would suggest is not to assume that it's a unionOf, unless there are more than one class. Note that this has been done properly in the generated OWL code.

Any idea?

Meng
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Elyes Lehtihet-3

Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Elyes Lehtihet-3
Dismiss the second question... I found out from where to download the
oldest versions/builds

Elyes

> Hello
>
>
>
> Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta
> build
> 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the
> sub-ontology
> is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on
> the
> build 304.
>
>
>
> I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think
> that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like
> it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.
>
>
>
> Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to
> download the previous build?
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Elyes
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On Property Domain

Ulrike Sattler
In reply to this post by Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
Hi Meng,

the problem is that you would change the semantics -- and then  
Protege-OWL's semantic would differ from the one for OWL-DL...most  
importantly, we would end up with a non-monotonic logic: eg, it isn't  
too hard to come up with an example where an ontology is  
inconsistent, but becomes consistent if you add a new domain  
restriction.

So, I am afraid that i would strongly advise against your suggestion:  
(1) it would not conform to the standard and (2) yield a quite  
different formalism.

Cheers, Uli

On 4 May 2006, at 09:33, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:

> Hi Protege-OWL enthusiasts,
>
> I have a suggestion/remark on the formation of property domain by  
> Protege OWL plug-in.
>
> To my understand, it's more intuitive that multiple domain classes  
> be combined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e. classes  
> on the list of property domain on the property panel will be  
> treated as a "unionOf" (or "or" in the description logic  
> terminology). This is also the case even when we have only one  
> property domain class. The single class will be wrapped by an "or"  
> tag, in case of DIG (This is used to communicate with most DL  
> reasoning backends).
>
> Semantically, this is not a problem. Syntactically, it is also not  
> a problem as long as that the reasoner can handle disjunction  
> (unionOf). However, we are implementing a DL reasoner for sub-
> Boolean logic that does not allow for disjunction but for property  
> domain constraints. This way, our reasoner CEL was hindered from  
> providing to the Protege users the expressivity of property domain.
>
> So, what I would suggest is not to assume that it's a unionOf,  
> unless there are more than one class. Note that this has been done  
> properly in the generated OWL code.
>
> Any idea?
>
> Meng

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On Property Domain

Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
Hi Uli,

Thanks for your opinion, but maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

What I would like to see changed in Progete-OWL *does not* change the semantics of Protege-OWL at all? Property domains are still combined disjunctively, but if it consists of a single class, then it should not be wrapped under an "<or>" tag.

Note that the OWL code generated from the same ontology (with a singleton domain) does not use a "unionOf" wrapper as the DIG code does.

To make this a little more precise, let's take a look at the following example:

Suppose that I want to fomulate a property hasChild with an obvious domain of Human. Now the DIG code that Protege OWL generates would be (notice the presence of an "or" wrapper):

<domain>
        <ratom name="hasChild"/>
        <or>
            <catom name="Human"/>
        </or>
</domain>

But the OWL code is (note that there's no "unionOf"):

<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasChild">
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Human"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>

Now, I don't see that the following (what I suggest to have) has any semantic problems with the previous two:

<domain>
        <ratom name="hasChild"/>
        <catom name="Human"/>
</domain>

Moreover, it even makes the DIG and OWL codes more coherent.

Regards,
Meng

On 5/4/06, Uli Sattler <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Meng,

the problem is that you would change the semantics -- and then
Protege-OWL's semantic would differ from the one for OWL-DL...most
importantly, we would end up with a non-monotonic logic: eg, it isn't
too hard to come up with an example where an ontology is
inconsistent, but becomes consistent if you add a new domain
restriction.

So, I am afraid that i would strongly advise against your suggestion:
(1) it would not conform to the standard and (2) yield a quite
different formalism.

Cheers, Uli

On 4 May 2006, at 09:33, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:

> Hi Protege-OWL enthusiasts,
>
> I have a suggestion/remark on the formation of property domain by

> Protege OWL plug-in.
>
> To my understand, it's more intuitive that multiple domain classes
> be combined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e. classes
> on the list of property domain on the property panel will be
> treated as a "unionOf" (or "or" in the description logic
> terminology). This is also the case even when we have only one
> property domain class. The single class will be wrapped by an "or"
> tag, in case of DIG (This is used to communicate with most DL
> reasoning backends).
>
> Semantically, this is not a problem. Syntactically, it is also not
> a problem as long as that the reasoner can handle disjunction
> (unionOf). However, we are implementing a DL reasoner for sub-
> Boolean logic that does not allow for disjunction but for property
> domain constraints. This way, our reasoner CEL was hindered from
> providing to the Protege users the expressivity of property domain.
>
> So, what I would suggest is not to assume that it's a unionOf,
> unless there are more than one class. Note that this has been done
> properly in the generated OWL code.
>
> Any idea?
>
> Meng

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On Property Domain

Matthew Horridge
Hi Meng,

I understand the issues you have with this.  I've modified the DIG  
renderer and committed the changes to the subversion repository.

In summary, you should now see

<domain>
         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
         <catom name="Human"/>
</domain>

instead of

<domain>
         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
         <or>
             <catom name="Human"/>
         </or>
</domain>


Cheers,

Matthew


On 4 May 2006, at 12:00, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:

> Hi Uli,
>
> Thanks for your opinion, but maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
>
> What I would like to see changed in Progete-OWL *does not* change  
> the semantics of Protege-OWL at all? Property domains are still  
> combined disjunctively, but if it consists of a single class, then  
> it should not be wrapped under an "<or>" tag.
>
> Note that the OWL code generated from the same ontology (with a  
> singleton domain) does not use a "unionOf" wrapper as the DIG code  
> does.
>
> To make this a little more precise, let's take a look at the  
> following example:
>
> Suppose that I want to fomulate a property hasChild with an obvious  
> domain of Human. Now the DIG code that Protege OWL generates would  
> be (notice the presence of an "or" wrapper):
>
> <domain>
>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>         <or>
>             <catom name="Human"/>
>         </or>
> </domain>
>
> But the OWL code is (note that there's no "unionOf"):
>
> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasChild">
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Human"/>
> </owl:ObjectProperty>
>
> Now, I don't see that the following (what I suggest to have) has  
> any semantic problems with the previous two:
>
> <domain>
>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>         <catom name="Human"/>
> </domain>
>
> Moreover, it even makes the DIG and OWL codes more coherent.
>
> Regards,
> Meng
>
> On 5/4/06, Uli Sattler <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi  
> Meng,
>
> the problem is that you would change the semantics -- and then
> Protege-OWL's semantic would differ from the one for OWL-DL...most
> importantly, we would end up with a non-monotonic logic: eg, it isn't
> too hard to come up with an example where an ontology is
> inconsistent, but becomes consistent if you add a new domain
> restriction.
>
> So, I am afraid that i would strongly advise against your suggestion:
> (1) it would not conform to the standard and (2) yield a quite
> different formalism.
>
> Cheers, Uli
>
> On 4 May 2006, at 09:33, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:
>
> > Hi Protege-OWL enthusiasts,
> >
> > I have a suggestion/remark on the formation of property domain by
> > Protege OWL plug-in.
> >
> > To my understand, it's more intuitive that multiple domain classes
> > be combined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e. classes
> > on the list of property domain on the property panel will be
> > treated as a "unionOf" (or "or" in the description logic
> > terminology). This is also the case even when we have only one
> > property domain class. The single class will be wrapped by an "or"
> > tag, in case of DIG (This is used to communicate with most DL
> > reasoning backends).
> >
> > Semantically, this is not a problem. Syntactically, it is also not
> > a problem as long as that the reasoner can handle disjunction
> > (unionOf). However, we are implementing a DL reasoner for sub-
> > Boolean logic that does not allow for disjunction but for property
> > domain constraints. This way, our reasoner CEL was hindered from
> > providing to the Protege users the expressivity of property domain.
> >
> > So, what I would suggest is not to assume that it's a unionOf,
> > unless there are more than one class. Note that this has been done
> > properly in the generated OWL code.
> >
> > Any idea?
> >
> > Meng
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
> subscribe.html
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On Property Domain

Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn
Thanks Matthew. I will be looking forward to the new subversion.

Meng

On 5/4/06, Matthew Horridge <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Meng,

I understand the issues you have with this.  I've modified the DIG
renderer and committed the changes to the subversion repository.

In summary, you should now see

<domain>
         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
         <catom name="Human"/>
</domain>

instead of

<domain>
         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
         <or>
             <catom name="Human"/>
         </or>
</domain>


Cheers,

Matthew


On 4 May 2006, at 12:00, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:

> Hi Uli,
>
> Thanks for your opinion, but maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
>
> What I would like to see changed in Progete-OWL *does not* change
> the semantics of Protege-OWL at all? Property domains are still
> combined disjunctively, but if it consists of a single class, then
> it should not be wrapped under an "<or>" tag.
>
> Note that the OWL code generated from the same ontology (with a
> singleton domain) does not use a "unionOf" wrapper as the DIG code
> does.
>
> To make this a little more precise, let's take a look at the
> following example:
>
> Suppose that I want to fomulate a property hasChild with an obvious
> domain of Human. Now the DIG code that Protege OWL generates would
> be (notice the presence of an "or" wrapper):
>
> <domain>
>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>         <or>
>             <catom name="Human"/>
>         </or>
> </domain>
>
> But the OWL code is (note that there's no "unionOf"):
>
> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasChild">
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Human"/>
> </owl:ObjectProperty>
>
> Now, I don't see that the following (what I suggest to have) has
> any semantic problems with the previous two:
>
> <domain>
>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>         <catom name="Human"/>
> </domain>
>
> Moreover, it even makes the DIG and OWL codes more coherent.
>
> Regards,
> Meng
>
> On 5/4/06, Uli Sattler < [hidden email]> wrote: Hi
> Meng,
>
> the problem is that you would change the semantics -- and then
> Protege-OWL's semantic would differ from the one for OWL-DL...most
> importantly, we would end up with a non-monotonic logic: eg, it isn't
> too hard to come up with an example where an ontology is
> inconsistent, but becomes consistent if you add a new domain
> restriction.
>
> So, I am afraid that i would strongly advise against your suggestion:
> (1) it would not conform to the standard and (2) yield a quite
> different formalism.
>
> Cheers, Uli
>
> On 4 May 2006, at 09:33, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:
>
> > Hi Protege-OWL enthusiasts,
> >
> > I have a suggestion/remark on the formation of property domain by
> > Protege OWL plug-in.
> >
> > To my understand, it's more intuitive that multiple domain classes
> > be combined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e. classes
> > on the list of property domain on the property panel will be
> > treated as a "unionOf" (or "or" in the description logic
> > terminology). This is also the case even when we have only one
> > property domain class. The single class will be wrapped by an "or"
> > tag, in case of DIG (This is used to communicate with most DL
> > reasoning backends).
> >
> > Semantically, this is not a problem. Syntactically, it is also not
> > a problem as long as that the reasoner can handle disjunction
> > (unionOf). However, we are implementing a DL reasoner for sub-
> > Boolean logic that does not allow for disjunction but for property
> > domain constraints. This way, our reasoner CEL was hindered from
> > providing to the Protege users the expressivity of property domain.
> >
> > So, what I would suggest is not to assume that it's a unionOf,
> > unless there are more than one class. Note that this has been done
> > properly in the generated OWL code.
> >
> > Any idea?
> >
> > Meng
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/
> subscribe.html
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On Property Domain

Ulrike Sattler
In reply to this post by Matthew Horridge
aaah - this makes it all clear! Cheers, Uli

On 4 May 2006, at 13:10, Matthew Horridge wrote:

> Hi Meng,
>
> I understand the issues you have with this.  I've modified the DIG  
> renderer and committed the changes to the subversion repository.
>
> In summary, you should now see
>
> <domain>
>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>         <catom name="Human"/>
> </domain>
>
> instead of
>
> <domain>
>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>         <or>
>             <catom name="Human"/>
>         </or>
> </domain>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 4 May 2006, at 12:00, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:
>
>> Hi Uli,
>>
>> Thanks for your opinion, but maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
>>
>> What I would like to see changed in Progete-OWL *does not* change  
>> the semantics of Protege-OWL at all? Property domains are still  
>> combined disjunctively, but if it consists of a single class, then  
>> it should not be wrapped under an "<or>" tag.
>>
>> Note that the OWL code generated from the same ontology (with a  
>> singleton domain) does not use a "unionOf" wrapper as the DIG code  
>> does.
>>
>> To make this a little more precise, let's take a look at the  
>> following example:
>>
>> Suppose that I want to fomulate a property hasChild with an  
>> obvious domain of Human. Now the DIG code that Protege OWL  
>> generates would be (notice the presence of an "or" wrapper):
>>
>> <domain>
>>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>>         <or>
>>             <catom name="Human"/>
>>         </or>
>> </domain>
>>
>> But the OWL code is (note that there's no "unionOf"):
>>
>> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#hasChild">
>>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Human"/>
>> </owl:ObjectProperty>
>>
>> Now, I don't see that the following (what I suggest to have) has  
>> any semantic problems with the previous two:
>>
>> <domain>
>>         <ratom name="hasChild"/>
>>         <catom name="Human"/>
>> </domain>
>>
>> Moreover, it even makes the DIG and OWL codes more coherent.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Meng
>>
>> On 5/4/06, Uli Sattler <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi  
>> Meng,
>>
>> the problem is that you would change the semantics -- and then
>> Protege-OWL's semantic would differ from the one for OWL-DL...most
>> importantly, we would end up with a non-monotonic logic: eg, it isn't
>> too hard to come up with an example where an ontology is
>> inconsistent, but becomes consistent if you add a new domain
>> restriction.
>>
>> So, I am afraid that i would strongly advise against your suggestion:
>> (1) it would not conform to the standard and (2) yield a quite
>> different formalism.
>>
>> Cheers, Uli
>>
>> On 4 May 2006, at 09:33, Boontawee Suntisrivaraporn wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Protege-OWL enthusiasts,
>> >
>> > I have a suggestion/remark on the formation of property domain by
>> > Protege OWL plug-in.
>> >
>> > To my understand, it's more intuitive that multiple domain classes
>> > be combined disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e. classes
>> > on the list of property domain on the property panel will be
>> > treated as a "unionOf" (or "or" in the description logic
>> > terminology). This is also the case even when we have only one
>> > property domain class. The single class will be wrapped by an "or"
>> > tag, in case of DIG (This is used to communicate with most DL
>> > reasoning backends).
>> >
>> > Semantically, this is not a problem. Syntactically, it is also not
>> > a problem as long as that the reasoner can handle disjunction
>> > (unionOf). However, we are implementing a DL reasoner for sub-
>> > Boolean logic that does not allow for disjunction but for property
>> > domain constraints. This way, our reasoner CEL was hindered from
>> > providing to the Protege users the expressivity of property domain.
>> >
>> > So, what I would suggest is not to assume that it's a unionOf,
>> > unless there are more than one class. Note that this has been done
>> > properly in the generated OWL code.
>> >
>> > Any idea?
>> >
>> > Meng
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
>> subscribe.html
>>
>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/ 
> subscribe.html
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

General question on reasoners

JMiller

I'm fairly new to this realm, and I have a basic question with regard to reasoners:

At a high level, what can I expect to receive from a reasoner?  Is it really only useful when changing the taxonomy, or does it have value as individuals are added?  Do different reasoners detect different things?

Jim Miller
Sr Software Engineer II, IIS
Raytheon Company

1200 S. Jupiter Road
Garland, TX  75042
972.205.4233 office
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: General question on reasoners

Matthew Horridge
Hi James,

There's some good examples here (including instance based reasoning)  
http://owl.man.ac.uk/2005/07/sssw/

Cheers,

Matthew


On 4 May 2006, at 18:46, James A Miller wrote:

>
> I'm fairly new to this realm, and I have a basic question with  
> regard to reasoners:
>
> At a high level, what can I expect to receive from a reasoner?  Is  
> it really only useful when changing the taxonomy, or does it have  
> value as individuals are added?  Do different reasoners detect  
> different things?
>
> Jim Miller
> Sr Software Engineer II, IIS
> Raytheon Company
>
> 1200 S. Jupiter Road
> Garland, TX  75042
> 972.205.4233 office
> [hidden email]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: General question on reasoners

Ulrike Sattler
In reply to this post by JMiller

On 4 May 2006, at 18:46, James A Miller wrote:


I'm fairly new to this realm, and I have a basic question with regard to reasoners:

At a high level, what can I expect to receive from a reasoner?  Is it really only useful when changing the taxonomy, or does it have value as individuals are added?  Do different reasoners detect different things?

the reasoners mentioned on 


are all designed to do the same since they implement *decision procedures* for the logical problems underlying the system services. Some support a more expressive logic than others, 

(eg, some support "unqualified number restrictions" as indicated by the letter "N" in the name of the logic supported, other qualified as indicated by a Q in the supported logic's name)

and some provide some more system services than others: 

(eg, some support more expressive query languages than others)


Jim Miller
Sr Software Engineer II, IIS
Raytheon Company

1200 S. Jupiter Road
Garland, TX  75042
972.205.4233 office
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Nick Drummond
In reply to this post by Elyes Lehtihet-3
Hi Elyes,

I've not had problems with the new mechanism.
There were some additional fixes that may be causing issues.
Do each of your ontologies load correctly on their own?

If so, please send me your ontologies to test.

This is one vote for the original active ontology selector on the toolbar.
I suspected this might not necessarily be to everyone's taste - just thought it was tidier.
Would anyone else prefer to have it as was?

Old releases available at [1]

Nick


On 4 May 2006, at 10:09, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:

Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Elyes Lehtihet-3

Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

All the sub-ontologies are loaded without any problem with Protégé build 304. There are 82 files in total. I cannot make the ontology public for the moment, but it should be available soon on the TSSG website.

 

In my opinion, it is a lot more handy to have all the sub-ontologies as a list, and not only a hierarchy of imports…

 

Thanks

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:13 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Hi Elyes,

 

I've not had problems with the new mechanism.

There were some additional fixes that may be causing issues.

Do each of your ontologies load correctly on their own?

 

If so, please send me your ontologies to test.

 

This is one vote for the original active ontology selector on the toolbar.

I suspected this might not necessarily be to everyone's taste - just thought it was tidier.

Would anyone else prefer to have it as was?

 

Old releases available at [1]

 

Nick

 

 

On 4 May 2006, at 10:09, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:



Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes



 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Nick Drummond
Elyes,

Perhaps the tree could be switchable with a standard list?
Are you sticking to 304 for now then?

Nick

On 10 May 2006, at 14:14, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:

Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

All the sub-ontologies are loaded without any problem with Protégé build 304. There are 82 files in total. I cannot make the ontology public for the moment, but it should be available soon on the TSSG website.

 

In my opinion, it is a lot more handy to have all the sub-ontologies as a list, and not only a hierarchy of imports…

 

Thanks

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:13 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Hi Elyes,

 

I've not had problems with the new mechanism.

There were some additional fixes that may be causing issues.

Do each of your ontologies load correctly on their own?

 

If so, please send me your ontologies to test.

 

This is one vote for the original active ontology selector on the toolbar.

I suspected this might not necessarily be to everyone's taste - just thought it was tidier.

Would anyone else prefer to have it as was?

 

Old releases available at [1]

 

Nick

 

 

On 4 May 2006, at 10:09, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:



Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes



 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Elyes Lehtihet-3

Nick,

 

The hierarchy of imports is quite useful but being able to see all the files (maybe in an alphabetical order?) is also a very useful functionality when you deal with a good number of imports.

 

Thanks,

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:39 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Elyes,

 

Perhaps the tree could be switchable with a standard list?

Are you sticking to 304 for now then?

 

Nick

 

On 10 May 2006, at 14:14, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:



Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

All the sub-ontologies are loaded without any problem with Protégé build 304. There are 82 files in total. I cannot make the ontology public for the moment, but it should be available soon on the TSSG website.

 

In my opinion, it is a lot more handy to have all the sub-ontologies as a list, and not only a hierarchy of imports…

 

Thanks

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:13 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Hi Elyes,

 

I've not had problems with the new mechanism.

There were some additional fixes that may be causing issues.

Do each of your ontologies load correctly on their own?

 

If so, please send me your ontologies to test.

 

This is one vote for the original active ontology selector on the toolbar.

I suspected this might not necessarily be to everyone's taste - just thought it was tidier.

Would anyone else prefer to have it as was?

 

Old releases available at [1]

 

Nick

 

 

On 4 May 2006, at 10:09, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:




Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes




 



 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Nick Drummond
I'll add it to the list

Nick

On 10 May 2006, at 16:45, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:

Nick,

 

The hierarchy of imports is quite useful but being able to see all the files (maybe in an alphabetical order?) is also a very useful functionality when you deal with a good number of imports.

 

Thanks,

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:39 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Elyes,

 

Perhaps the tree could be switchable with a standard list?

Are you sticking to 304 for now then?

 

Nick

 

On 10 May 2006, at 14:14, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:



Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

All the sub-ontologies are loaded without any problem with Protégé build 304. There are 82 files in total. I cannot make the ontology public for the moment, but it should be available soon on the TSSG website.

 

In my opinion, it is a lot more handy to have all the sub-ontologies as a list, and not only a hierarchy of imports…

 

Thanks

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:13 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Hi Elyes,

 

I've not had problems with the new mechanism.

There were some additional fixes that may be causing issues.

Do each of your ontologies load correctly on their own?

 

If so, please send me your ontologies to test.

 

This is one vote for the original active ontology selector on the toolbar.

I suspected this might not necessarily be to everyone's taste - just thought it was tidier.

Would anyone else prefer to have it as was?

 

Old releases available at [1]

 

Nick

 

 

On 4 May 2006, at 10:09, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:




Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes




 



 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

Elyes Lehtihet-3
In reply to this post by Elyes Lehtihet-3

Thanks a lot Nick.

 

Regards

Elyes


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:48 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

I'll add it to the list

 

Nick

 

On 10 May 2006, at 16:45, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:


Nick,

 

The hierarchy of imports is quite useful but being able to see all the files (maybe in an alphabetical order?) is also a very useful functionality when you deal with a good number of imports.

 

Thanks,

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:39 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Elyes,

 

Perhaps the tree could be switchable with a standard list?

Are you sticking to 304 for now then?

 

Nick

 

On 10 May 2006, at 14:14, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:

 

Hi Nick,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

All the sub-ontologies are loaded without any problem with Protégé build 304. There are 82 files in total. I cannot make the ontology public for the moment, but it should be available soon on the TSSG website.

 

In my opinion, it is a lot more handy to have all the sub-ontologies as a list, and not only a hierarchy of imports…

 

Thanks

Elyes

 


From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Drummond
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:13 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [protege-owl] Re: Bug : Build 318 - Set active ontology

 

Hi Elyes,

 

I've not had problems with the new mechanism.

There were some additional fixes that may be causing issues.

Do each of your ontologies load correctly on their own?

 

If so, please send me your ontologies to test.

 

This is one vote for the original active ontology selector on the toolbar.

I suspected this might not necessarily be to everyone's taste - just thought it was tidier.

Would anyone else prefer to have it as was?

 

Old releases available at [1]

 

Nick

 

 

On 4 May 2006, at 10:09, Elyes Lehtihet wrote:



 

Hello

 

Every time I try to set the active sub-ontology, using Protégé 3.2Beta build 318, the “ugly” widget appears on the metadata tabbed pane, the sub-ontology is selected but it is impossible to change again. It was working fine on the build 304.

 

I am working on a project with an important number of imports and I think that the option of selecting a sub-ontology should be on the toolbar, like it was on build 304 … it was a lot more clear and easy to use.

 

Is there a chance to see that fixed in the next build? Is it possible to download the previous build?

 

Best regards

Elyes