Some Best Practices for New Protege Users
Updated: Sep 27, 2022
I've been following the Protege mailing list for several years. I've noticed that I find myself and other experienced users often repeating certain information with new users. These are best practices and design patterns that experienced users are familiar with but that new users may not be aware of. I've created a series of posts that describe some of the best practices that in my experience are often useful for solving various problems. In each post I usually include one or more supporting documents or example ontologies to demonstrate the concept. In this post I'm summarizing all of these posts in one place. The order I present them in here doesn't correspond to the order that I wrote them in. I wrote them more or less randomly as various ideas occurred to me, here I'm trying to provide some order. Each post (well with two exceptions) are completely independent of each other but in this post I'm listing them in the order that I think would make the most sense for a new user to read them in.
Theoretical Basics. This provides an overview of the set theoretic and logical foundation for OWL and a very brief description of how OWL maps to other paradigms such as E/R modeling and object-oriented analysis and design.
New Pizza Tutorial. This is a new version of the Pizza tutorial for Protege. I've made it consistent with the new UI and added new sections for SWRL, SPARQL, and SHACL.
SWRL Tutorial. A short tutorial on how to use the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) in Protege. The domain is process modeling. A small project plan ontology is developed and rules are used to update things like start times, slack time, etc.
Drools vs. Pellet for SWRL rules. A common thing for new SWRL users to do is to use the Drools buttons on the SWRLTab to run SWRL rules. This post describes why using the Pellet reasoner is usually preferable to using Drools.
Exporting Inferred Axioms as Ontology. A description of how and when to use a command in Protege to save all the inferences of the reasoner in a file. Typically, inferences are not saved but for many cases it can be very useful to save them.
Representing Qualitative Values as an Enumerated Class. This post describes a very useful design pattern to represent qualitative values (e.g., never, seldom, often) as an enumerated class and how to define properties that impose a transitive order on these values which can be tested in rules and DL statements.
Implementing N-ary Relations in OWL. This uses the ontology from the previous post and shows how to implement a ternary relation in OWL. The example illustrates how using this design pattern can make your ontology much easier to maintain by eliminating the need to write extra rules when new data is added to the ontology. The 3 SWRL rules used in the example ontology from the previous post are replaced by one rule which not only works for the data in that ontology but would continue to work as new individuals were added.
Removing Ontology Prefixes from SWRL Rules. Last and probably least this is a fix for a minor bug that sometimes comes up when using SWRL rules. The SWRLTab will sometimes include the ontology prefix in the name of every object in a rule. This doesn't harm anything, it has no effect on how the rules work but it can look a bit ugly and confusing. The fix is easy but involved manually editing the OWL file which should be done with care as one wrong comma (or as I experience once, one replacement of a quote with a "smart" quote) can make the entire file unreadable.
As always feel free to comment if anything is confusing, downloads aren't working, etc. Or feel free to contact me via email which can be found on my contact page.
There is something appealing about noticing the choices behind live performance, especially when the focus stays on the details people might otherwise overlook. A pause or a change in lighting can alter the way an audience understands a moment. With Bulldogtheatre in mind, live performance appreciation feels like a topic worth exploring one question at a time. I am still thinking through the practical side, because the context can change what seems useful. What would you pay attention to when comparing two performances of the same scene?
For me, exploring wine through taste and context becomes more engaging when there is room for questions as well as explanations. The setting and the food alongside a drink can change what someone notices about it. That is why the connection between Bearcreekwineryalaska and wine appreciation ideas makes me want to think through an example. A simple comparison would help me picture the differences without rushing towards a fixed answer. How would you compare impressions without assuming everyone experiences the same flavours?
SSP2 is a compact numbered school identity, and I would want its context explained rather than assume what every initial represents. The everyday learning activities can help make that identity understandable. That is my starting point for SSP2 school learning. I am interested in how pupils work through a question and compare different approaches. A description of an ordinary task can give a new reader more useful context than a broad claim about the school that contains no examples.
SP Swiete combines a primary school label with a place-based name, which gives the community a specific identity. I am curious about how pupils take part in the ordinary activities behind that identity. That is what comes to mind around SP Swiete school community. A shared task or a small event can give younger learners a role they understand. I like school descriptions that explain participation through concrete moments rather than relying on the name itself to convey a sense of belonging.
SP Parczew suggests a primary school context with a clear local name. Reading feels like a useful classroom angle because pupils can bring different observations to the same text. That is what interests me about SP Parczew primary school reading. I like questions that let a child point to the detail they noticed instead of guessing which interpretation is expected. A discussion becomes more thoughtful when there is time to explain why a character's choice or a particular sentence stood out.