- From: Gunnar AAstrand Grimnes <ggrimnes@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:03:43 +0100
- To: <denn@suffolk.lib.ny.us>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 18:24 23/10/2001 -0400, you wrote: >I am embarking on an ontology building mission and wish to comply as >thoroughly as possible with the latest DAML+OIL spec (because the consensus >seems to be that this is the leading contender for semantic web adoption). >While several editors like Protégé 2000 (with the OIL plugin), OilEd and >OntoEdit seem to be available with some maturity, I am floundering in trying >to gauge how complete their support of the spec really is. Can anyone offer >an opinion as to which most fully exploits the DAML+OIL representation, or >where I might encounter deficiencies. I understand that all these tools are >evolving quickly, and accept that any answer may be fleeting. Thanks from a >newcomer to your list (the list's archive search doesn't seem to be >working). I was on a similar quest a few months ago, and my conclusion is that both Protege and OntoEdit are too much beta quality to be any real use to anyone. (Apologies to whoever made them if they are reading this) they crash randomly, the screen becomes distorted far too often (quite common Java Swing bug unfortunately) and they often refuse to read any daml file, even the ones I just saved with the same program. I am not a DAML+OIL expert, so I cannot say anything about how complete or fateful the DAML conformity is, but I would go with OilEd all the way. -- Gunnar AAstrand Grimnes ggrimnes@csd.abdn.ac.uk http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~ggrimnes 7 John Knox Court Mounthooly Aberdeen AB24 3LF
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 06:04:09 UTC