Changes between Version 32 and Version 33 of ImplementationBootcamp

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
2010/02/11 21:22:11 (15 years ago)
Author:
RutgerVos
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • ImplementationBootcamp

    v32 v33  
    3030 
    3131MDW:  I highly recommend that you "make friends" with someone who has a deep understanding of OWL, and the consequences of various OWL constructs, as you go through your learning experience.  While the existing tutorials are good for telling you what is possible, they aren't always entirely clear about the consequences of choosing one encoding method versus another... and this dramatically affects your ability to "reason over" your data!!  Unfortunately, there are few shortcuts - OWL is hard!   
     32 
     33=== Which version of Protege should I use? === 
     34 
     35Why not the latest one? You get the current OWL 2. 
     36 
     37MDW:  Protege 3 and Protege 4 are "philosophically" different, and represent a split in the global ontology community that runs roughly along the lines of the "OBO-fans" and the "OWL-DL-fans" (that's over-simplifying the situation, but I think it is by-and-large correct).  The two development communities had different target-audiences in mind when developing the software, and those audiences are reflected in the decisions made.  Protege 4 uses the Manchester OWL API "under the hood", and is somewhat more capable of manipulating OWL than Protege 3 is (IMO).  On the other hand, if you are planning to use Protege to generate RDF data ("individuals") manually, then Protege 3 might be more useful for you.  This is all entirely my opinion, so please don't flame me if you are a fan of one or the other :-) 
    3238 
    3339===  I have an analysis tool, how do I expose it as a semantic web resource? === 
    … …  
    9096MDW:  There was a VERY brief discussion of this issue on Thursday... the answer was "be pragmatic".  Highly granular data (like absolute expression-level changes for microarrays) might not be appropriate for conversion into RDF because it explodes the size of the dataset in a circumstance where (a) the dataset is generally going to be used as a whole anyway, and (b) there are completely adequate parsers for existing file-formats, and (c) the benefit of being able to reason over an RDF representation of the data is limited, or absent.   
    9197 
    92  
    93 === Which version of Protege should I use? === 
    94  
    95 Why not the latest one? You get the current OWL 2. 
    96  
    97 MDW:  Protege 3 and Protege 4 are "philosophically" different, and represent a split in the global ontology community that runs roughly along the lines of the "OBO-fans" and the "OWL-DL-fans" (that's over-simplifying the situation, but I think it is by-and-large correct).  The two development communities had different target-audiences in mind when developing the software, and those audiences are reflected in the decisions made.  Protege 4 uses the Manchester OWL API "under the hood", and is somewhat more capable of manipulating OWL than Protege 3 is (IMO).  On the other hand, if you are planning to use Protege to generate RDF data ("individuals") manually, then Protege 3 might be more useful for you.  This is all entirely my opinion, so please don't flame me if you are a fan of one or the other :-) 
    98  
    99  
    10098=== How do I create a SADI service? === 
    10199