RE: [Mged-ontologies] MO and HTML view

[Miller, M. D (Rosetta) <Michael_Miller@Rosettabio.com>]

hi trish and junmin,

thanks for all your work here.

if the Protege output can be tailored (or, worse case, we can run an XSL
script over it) that is now my preference.

> This can be=20
> addressed in the=20
> ontology itself or possibly with the Protege software developers.

developing an ontology with rules based on software flaws is bad (if it
is true individuals are allowed to have the same name as a class) so I
vote for the developers.

cheers,
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trish Whetzel [mailto:wh...@pc...]=20
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:50 PM
> To: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta)
> Cc: mge...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Mged-ontologies] MO and HTML view
>=20
>=20
> Hi Michael,
>=20
> >> And you can adjust the html output from Protege, e.g., you
> >> can de-select
> >> the slots output, hide those instances, like this page I have:
> >> http://www.cbil.upenn.edu/~junmin/protege/
> Yes, the output from Protege allows for many options. I=20
> decided to present=20
> this with most of the options "on". The main thing I want to=20
> get feedback=20
> on is the format, the multi frame or the output from Protege and how=20
> these would work for various applications that point to the=20
> HTML view. We=20
> can go from there wrt to other items e.g. clean-up, if the=20
> Protege format=20
> is the preferred format. So far it is a tie.
>=20
> For the below, I can look into this tomorrow and post other=20
> files. Junmin,=20
> in an effort to not duplicate work and to maintain=20
> consistency in where=20
> these files are posted, please send any files that you have=20
> with exact=20
> descriptions of how they were generated (Protege and OWL=20
> plugin version=20
> info for example).
>=20
> > This seems to go too far, now I don't even see the slots that are
> > associated with a class.
> >
> > One thing we might do is generate the Protege HTML then=20
> write an XSL=20
> > script to remove the empty slots.
> >
> > I did like how the lower down sections (the owl:*, rdf:*,=20
> etc.) were=20
> > summarized on the main page, that takes away a lot of=20
> clutter but there=20
> > are still links to the information.
>=20
> WRT to Age, this built-in duplication in the ontology is causing=20
> an error when there is a Class and an Individual of the same string.
> Interestingly, the current view of the MGED Ontology has this=20
> problem in=20
> reverse. When trying to view the individual, age, bedding,=20
> individual,=20
> organism or sex, the link goes to the class. This can be=20
> addressed in the=20
> ontology itself or possibly with the Protege software developers.
>=20
> Trish
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20