mlhim-owners team mailing list archive

[Timothy Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

No, not at all.

I was only referring to Protege because it is the most common tool
that ontology developers use.
The point I am trying to make is that consistency in attribute names
will be beneficial.  I see the knowledge workers that are maintaining
ontologies to be the same type (if not the very same) people that will
be creating CCDs.

The ideal situation is that the CDD will look a lot like XMind except
scaled back and driven directly from the ECore MLHIM2 model.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

--Tim



On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 18:27, Luciana Tricai Cavalini
<lutricav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello MLHIM Owners,
>
> A question to Tim:
>
> Are we back to Protegé instead of EMF for the 'final' version of the CDD?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Luciana.
>
>
> Em 22/12/2011 23:37, Timothy Cook escreveu:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just as a reminder, 2.3.0 final will be ready on 1 Jan. 2012.
>> Checking many details has brought me back to the issues I have had
>> before about declaring coded entries (DvCodedString) that have
>> attribute names that are inline with the current industries of
>> vocabulary/ontology management.  My point is that if the attribute
>> names are the same then it will be easier for knowledge modelers
>> familiar with tools like Protege.
>>
>> Does anyone have any input on changes that are needed?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>
> --
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antivírus e
>  acredita-se estar livre de perigo.
>



-- 
============================================
Timothy Cook, MSc           +1 281 506 2860
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
Skype ID == timothy.cook
Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook