W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: versioning in NF&R

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:27:41 +0100
Message-Id: <D630D863-5B93-4435-820E-154D4D912E3E@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@alcatel-lucent.com>
Looks good to me. I suggested a couple of possible changes below, but  
neither is critical.


On 14 May 2009, at 15:44, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:

> LCC J4 mentions that versioning is good and asks for a place where  
> users
> can find out about it.  However, NF&R doesn't mention this.
> I propose to add something like the following to NF&R.  If there is no
> problem, I'll just go ahead and do it.
> peter
> 2.6.3: Locating and Versioning OWL 2 Ontologies
> In OWL 1 ontologies can be stored as Semantic Web documents, and
> ontologies can import other ontologies.  In OWL 2 this is slightly
> cleared up, making it clear that ontology importing is by location.

"slightly cleared up, making it clear ..." sounds strange. How about:  
"This is the same in OWL 2, and it is made clearer that importing is  
by location."

> OWL 2 also clears up the relationship between an ontology name  
> (IRI) and
> its location and, in response to several requests, provides a simple
> versioning mechanism by means of version names (IRIs).  Each OWL 2
> ontology may have an ontology IRI, which is used to identify the
> ontology. OWL 2 ontologies may also have version IRIs, which are  
> used to
> identify the version of the ontology.
> An OWL 2 ontology should be retrievable by using its version IRI,  
> if it
> has one.  One of the OWL 2 ontologies that share an ontology IRI (the
> ontology versions) should be retrievable at the ontology IRI - this
> ontology is the current one of the versions.  If it doesn't matter  
> which
> of the versions is desired then importing can use the ontology IRI,  
> but
> if a particular version is desired then the version IRI is used when
> importing.

Is this last paragraph needed? Seems to me that it could be replaced  
by a pointer to the relevant section of SS&AS.

> Example:
> The ontology
>   Ontology(:OI :VI ...)
> is supposed to be retrievable from :VI.  If it is also retrievable  
> from
> :OI then it is the current version.
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 16:28:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC