Hi,
Samson wrote:
>Last year a Swedish visitor to our lab experimented with a different
>approach, where he implemented "protege-defclass" and
>"protege-definstance" methods that directly convert Protege classes and
>Protege instances into Jess templates and Jess facts, bypassing the
>Javabean convention altogether. It worked, but he returned to his lab
>and didn't have time to continue. (He is not a Jess user either.) If
>anyone is interested in doing a robust implementation of this approach,
>I can put you in touch with him. This approach is quite elegant, but,
>again, is best only if (1) you want to work in Protege environment and
>(2) you don't need to define your own methods for your classes.
I understand this can be useful when you want the 'bean-fact' mached in LHS
to do something useful in the RHS. 'Just' for preserving the
ontology/knowledge structure created in Protege for Jess - the approach I
had in mind (and that seems to be close to what you describe above) is
actually more approriate. Is that correct?
I'd greatly appreciate if your 'Swedish visitor' would agree to share his
experience - and maybe the code (even if not complete).
Thanks,
Marc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
