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

Re: versioning in NF&R

From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 20:34:38 +0200
Message-ID: <b0ed1d660905141134t68519e77sa59434c0515ef8b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Peter

Thanks for the proposed text.
I was editing NF&R in the meantime when you sent this email.
I did not remove the last paragraph because I found it useful.
Please have a look and say if it's satisfying.

Christine



2009/5/14 Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: versioning in NF&R
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:27:41 +0100
>
>> Looks good to me. I suggested a couple of possible changes below, but
>> neither is critical.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> 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."
>
> I've fixed this up.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I think that NF&R has to say something about where ontologies are
> supposed to be stored.  The above paragraph is too "dry", so I suggest
> the following instead:
>
> An OWL 2 ontology is stored at its version IRI and one of the ontologies
> that share the ontology IRI is stored at the ontology IRI.  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.
>
> peter
>
>



-- 
Christine
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 18:35:19 UTC

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