4.4 Article

WebProtege: A collaborative ontology editor and knowledge acquisition tool for the Web

期刊

SEMANTIC WEB
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 89-99

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/SW-2012-0057

关键词

Web-based ontology editing; knowledge acquisition; collaboration; Protege; Semantic Web

资金

  1. NLM Grant [1R01GM086587-01]
  2. U.S. National Library of Medicine [LM007885]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM086587] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE [P41LM007885] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we present WebProtege-a lightweight ontology editor and knowledge acquisition tool for the Web. With the wide adoption of Web 2.0 platforms and the gradual adoption of ontologies and Semantic Web technologies in the real world, we need ontology-development tools that are better suited for the novel ways of interacting, constructing and consuming knowledge. Users today take Web-based content creation and online collaboration for granted. WebProtege integrates these features as part of the ontology development process itself. We tried to lower the entry barrier to ontology development by providing a tool that is accessible from any Web browser, has extensive support for collaboration, and a highly customizable and pluggable user interface that can be adapted to any level of user expertise. The declarative user interface enabled us to create custom knowledge-acquisition forms tailored for domain experts. We built WebProtege using the existing Protege infrastructure, which supports collaboration on the back end side, and the Google Web Toolkit for the front end. The generic and extensible infrastructure allowed us to easily deploy WebProtege in production settings for several projects. We present the main features of WebProtege and its architecture and describe briefly some of its uses for real-world projects. WebProtege is free and open source. An online demo is available at http://webprotege.stanford.edu.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据