Recent changes to feature-requests

#102 Additional OWLPrimitive interface

fairy-jee — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 19:22:04 -0000

it would be more nice if we could pass class name and individuals in ontology using html page. And also store document file in ontology.

#32 Manchester owl syntax rendering of swrl variables is ugly

Ignazio Palmisano — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 18:51:41 -0000

Description has changed:

Diff:

--- old
+++ new
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-
 This is an owl api v3 issue.  I don't feel comfortable with my expertise on this issue.

 The motivation for this feature request is to be able to support better editing of rules in Protege 4.1.  Protege 4.1 uses the manchester owl syntax both for rendering and editing rules.  Currently when a SWRL rule is rendered the variables are rendered with their full uri.  So a simple rule in the pizza ontology would be rendered like this:

status: open --> closed-fixed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)

#32 Manchester owl syntax rendering of swrl variables is ugly

Ignazio Palmisano — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 18:51:24 -0000

I just realized that it's actually simple to change the rendering to match the examples in the paper, i.e., ?x and ?y. The parser can support both ? and ?x easily enough.

#32 Manchester owl syntax rendering of swrl variables is ugly

Ignazio Palmisano — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 18:09:12 -0000

At long last this feature has been implemented; the variable namespace is discarded and urn:swrl# is used. This does not match exactly the syntax in the paper, but the problem is that a SWRLVariable object expects an IRI there.
The fix allows Protege to remove the override in SWRLRuleChecker.

Changing the code further to remove the need for variables to be IRIs requires larger interface changes.

#20 Add inferred axiom generator factories for each reasoner

Ignazio Palmisano — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:25:30 -0000

status: open --> closed-fixed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)

#54 tool for detecting axioms that can't be saved in a format

Ignazio Palmisano — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:19:18 -0000

Description has changed:

Diff:

--- old
+++ new
@@ -1,3 +1,2 @@
-
 It would be nice to have some way to check whether an ontology can be saved in its entirety in a particular format.  Currently the format that I know has an issue \(well LaTeX doesn't count...\) is the Manchester OWL Syntax format.  It can't support entity annotations when the entity is not declared and GCI's.  Are these the only two cases where the Manchester OWL Syntax will lose axioms on a save?  A utility could know this and supply the needed information.

status: open --> closed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)

#80 Update documentation on non null parameters, add more checks

Ignazio Palmisano — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:14:23 -0000

status: open --> closed-fixed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)

#91 use GitHub clone for pull requests

Ignazio Palmisano — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:11:28 -0000

status: open --> closed-fixed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)

#100 complete base visitors and visitorex

Ignazio Palmisano — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:10:13 -0000

status: open --> closed-fixed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)

#92 micro interfaces

Ignazio Palmisano — Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:09:36 -0000

status: open --> closed-fixed
Group: --> Next_Release_(example)