The development of ontology engineering tools has traditionally lacked a user-centred perspective, instead being guided by the need to address particular gaps indicated by anecdotal evidence. This has typically resulted in prototypes that do not obtain traction beyond a narrow scope. Understanding the authoring patterns of ontology engineers is crucial to informing the development of ontology engineering tools that cater for the activity workflows of the users and, consequently, boosting the adoption of these tools. We report evidence about how Protégé is used across three different authoring settings, addressing the threats to validity of relying on a single user study. These settings address the continuum of expertise (from intermediate to expert users), the type of tasks (whether they are free-form or prescriptive) and the effect of the location (laboratory, tutorial or on their own) and how the studies are administered (whether or not there is a close supervision). While there are activity workflows that are particular to settings, the results indicate a number of core workflows that are common to all of them. We discuss actionable recommendations for ontology engineering tools in light of these results.

传统上，本体工程工具的开发缺乏以用户为中心的观点，而是由需要解决传闻证据所指出的特定差距所指导。这通常导致原型无法在狭窄范围内获得牵引力。了解本体工程师的创作模式对于通知本体工程工具的开发至关重要，该工具可满足用户的活动工作流，从而促进这些工具的采用。我们报告了有关如何在三种不同的创作环境中使用Protégé的证据，从而解决了依赖单个用户研究的有效性面临的威胁。这些设置解决了专业知识的连续性（从中级用户到专家用户），任务的类型（无论是自由形式还是规定性的）以及位置的影响（实验室，教程或自行完成）以及如何进行研究（无论是否受到密切监督）。尽管存在一些特定于设置的活动工作流程，但结果表明它们共同使用了许多核心工作流程。根据这些结果，我们讨论了有关本体工程工具的可行建议。