Protégé vs OntoCode decision matrix¶
Use this page to decide when OntoCode fits, when to keep Protégé, and when to run both. It reflects v0.8.0 — see What ships today. A full Protégé migration guide is planned for v1.0.
Quick decision¶
| Your situation | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Git + VS Code + Turtle-primary ontologies | Adopt OntoCode (pilot IDE + CI) |
| CI lint/consistency gates without desktop Protégé | Adopt OntoIndex CLI (validate / classify) |
| Full OWL 2 DL engineering with DL reasoner | Keep Protégé until v1.0 DL ships |
| OBO release pipelines with in-editor OBO write-back | Keep Protégé or external OBO tools; use OntoCode for index/ROBOT CI |
| Enterprise requires vendor SLA / SOC 2 | Defer or run limited CI pilot — Production readiness |
| Air-gapped VS Code + internal artifact mirror | Pilot — Enterprise deployment |
Capability comparison (v0.8)¶
| Capability | Protégé | OntoCode v0.8 | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| OWL 2 DL reasoning | Yes | EL / RL / RDFS only | dl / auto require OntoLogos 1.0 |
| Turtle authoring in Git | Manual / plugins | Native write-back | OntoCode inspector + patches |
| RDF/XML in-place editing | Yes | Read-only index | Write-back Turtle only |
| Manchester axiom editing | Full | MVP subset | Disjoint shipped; chains view-only |
| Disjoint classes | Yes | Yes (v0.8) | Via Manchester / patch JSON |
| Property chain editing | Yes | View-only | v1.0 target |
| OBO format | Native | Index + syntax highlight | No OBO write-back in VS Code |
| ROBOT integration | Common | CLI wrapper | Java + robot required |
| SQL/SPARQL over repo | Plugins / external | Built-in workbench + CLI | |
| Git-native PR workflow | Weak default | Strong default | Semantic diff v0.9 target |
| Workspace refactoring | Limited | Rename, migrate, move, extract | Turtle only; preview + apply |
| CI automation | External scripts | ontoindex validate / classify |
Documented exit codes |
| Local-first / no telemetry | Desktop app | Yes | No cloud upload by default |
| Commercial support | Ecosystem / third parties | None — community OSS |
Adoption paths¶
Path A — CI only (lowest risk)¶
- Pin
ontoindex-cli0.8.0 in Linux CI - Gate merges with
ontoindex validate - Optional:
ontoindex classify --profile elwhen ontology is EL - Keep Protégé on engineer desktops unchanged
Docs: CI integration · Production evidence protocol
Path B — Split workflow (recommended pilot)¶
- Author
.ttlin OntoCode; validate in CI - Use Protégé for DL review, property chains, or OBO edits that OntoCode does not support
- Standardize on Turtle in Git where possible
- Run 4–8 week pilot — Production readiness
Docs: Protégé coexistence
Path C — Protégé replacement (not supported today)¶
Do not plan org-wide Protégé retirement on v0.8 documentation alone. Re-evaluate at v1.0 against Protégé parity matrix.
When OntoCode is a poor fit¶
- Ontology program requires OWL 2 DL reasoning as the primary gate
- Primary artifacts are OWL/XML or OBO with no Turtle migration plan
- Workspaces exceed workspace limits without split-repo strategy
- Legal cannot accept LGPL (
horned-owl) for desktop distribution — LGPL compliance - Procurement requires SOC 2, HIPAA BAA, or vendor SLA