plugin vs app from scratch

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

plugin vs app from scratch

grantpax
This app I need to create does not edit the TBox - and I need to use the reasoner to deal with ABox changes. Under what circumstances would you build a plugin vs building an app from scratch based on, say, Jena?
_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plugin vs app from scratch

Matthew Horridge-2
Administrator
Hi Grant,

If you want a standalone app then you should use a standalone API and not Protege.  If the app is OWL based (or uses an OWL ontology) then I recommend that you use the OWL API.  This API provides access to OWL reasoners.  It is also the API the Protege and WebProtege use under the hood.

If you want to make your work available to Protege users for use within Protege then you should add a thin wrapper around it in order to make it available as a Protege plugin.  If you write the core of your app correctly then the code that makes it available as a Protege plugin should be fairly minimal.

Cheers,

Matthew


> On 8 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Grant Pax <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This app I need to create does not edit the TBox - and I need to use the reasoner to deal with ABox changes. Under what circumstances would you build a plugin vs building an app from scratch based on, say, Jena?
> _______________________________________________
> protege-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev


_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plugin vs app from scratch

grantpax
Thank you. Very helpful. If you were to start building a new app, would you work with v4 of the OWL API or stick with 3.5.1?

Matthew Horridge-2 wrote
Hi Grant,

If you want a standalone app then you should use a standalone API and not Protege.  If the app is OWL based (or uses an OWL ontology) then I recommend that you use the OWL API.  This API provides access to OWL reasoners.  It is also the API the Protege and WebProtege use under the hood.

If you want to make your work available to Protege users for use within Protege then you should add a thin wrapper around it in order to make it available as a Protege plugin.  If you write the core of your app correctly then the code that makes it available as a Protege plugin should be fairly minimal.

Cheers,

Matthew


> On 8 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Grant Pax <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This app I need to create does not edit the TBox - and I need to use the reasoner to deal with ABox changes. Under what circumstances would you build a plugin vs building an app from scratch based on, say, Jena?
> _______________________________________________
> protege-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev


_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plugin vs app from scratch

Matthew Horridge-2
Administrator
Hi Grant,

I would use Version 4.  It has several optimisations that make it more efficient.

Cheers,

Matthew


> On 8 Jan 2015, at 22:12, grantpax <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thank you. Very helpful. If you were to start building a new app, would you
> work with v4 of the OWL API or stick with 3.5.1?
>
>
> Matthew Horridge-2 wrote
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> If you want a standalone app then you should use a standalone API and not
>> Protege.  If the app is OWL based (or uses an OWL ontology) then I
>> recommend that you use the OWL API.  This API provides access to OWL
>> reasoners.  It is also the API the Protege and WebProtege use under the
>> hood.
>>
>> If you want to make your work available to Protege users for use within
>> Protege then you should add a thin wrapper around it in order to make it
>> available as a Protege plugin.  If you write the core of your app
>> correctly then the code that makes it available as a Protege plugin should
>> be fairly minimal.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>>> On 8 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Grant Pax &lt;
>
>> grant@.twostewards
>
>> &gt; wrote:
>>>
>>> This app I need to create does not edit the TBox - and I need to use the
>>> reasoner to deal with ABox changes. Under what circumstances would you
>>> build a plugin vs building an app from scratch based on, say, Jena?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> protege-dev mailing list
>>>
>
>> protege-dev@.stanford
>
>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-dev mailing list
>
>> protege-dev@.stanford
>
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/plugin-vs-app-from-scratch-tp4662085p4662090.html
> Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> protege-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev


_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plugin vs app from scratch

grantpax
Thank you.

I’ve been going through the Protege code. What an accomplishment. The 108K lines of java code is a lot for a novice. Do you know of any smaller open source, OSGi-based projects based on OWL API?

> On Jan 9, 2015, at 4:13 AM, Matthew Horridge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Grant,
>
> I would use Version 4.  It has several optimisations that make it more efficient.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
>> On 8 Jan 2015, at 22:12, grantpax <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you. Very helpful. If you were to start building a new app, would you
>> work with v4 of the OWL API or stick with 3.5.1?
>>
>>
>> Matthew Horridge-2 wrote
>>> Hi Grant,
>>>
>>> If you want a standalone app then you should use a standalone API and not
>>> Protege.  If the app is OWL based (or uses an OWL ontology) then I
>>> recommend that you use the OWL API.  This API provides access to OWL
>>> reasoners.  It is also the API the Protege and WebProtege use under the
>>> hood.
>>>
>>> If you want to make your work available to Protege users for use within
>>> Protege then you should add a thin wrapper around it in order to make it
>>> available as a Protege plugin.  If you write the core of your app
>>> correctly then the code that makes it available as a Protege plugin should
>>> be fairly minimal.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8 Jan 2015, at 15:21, Grant Pax &lt;
>>
>>> grant@.twostewards
>>
>>> &gt; wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This app I need to create does not edit the TBox - and I need to use the
>>>> reasoner to deal with ABox changes. Under what circumstances would you
>>>> build a plugin vs building an app from scratch based on, say, Jena?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> protege-dev mailing list
>>>>
>>
>>> protege-dev@.stanford
>>
>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> protege-dev mailing list
>>
>>> protege-dev@.stanford
>>
>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/plugin-vs-app-from-scratch-tp4662085p4662090.html
>> Sent from the Protege Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev

_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev