W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-90 (namespace-in-ontology): Namespace used in ontology [Formal Model]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:52:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4E9FEF63.5080709@ninebynine.org>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 20/10/2011 10:13, Paul Groth wrote:
> I agree absolutely here. I would like to see one URL for the major concepts in
> the data model. It's weird to have two "official" urls.
>
> I wonder how we can do this?
>
> Can we not just have /ns/prov ?

That would be my choice.

#g
--


> Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Hi Graham
>> Response interleaved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 16:53, "Graham Klyne"<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/10/2011 14:51, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>>> Recommended by Ivan.
>>> Quite - let W3C staff handle namespace URI formats :)
>>>
>>>> I suggest you follow the same approach /ns/prov-o
>>> But here I sense a possible problem. Why do we need a different namespace for
>>> the ontology and DM, when they are essentially descriptions of the same
>>> things/concetps? (There may be some additional "glue" URIs in the ontology,
>>> but I'd expect everything (or almost everything) identified as part of the DM
>>> to be formally described in the ontology.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I am in agreement with the spirit of this proposal. It is expressed as the
>> fourth interoperability proposal we discussed at the last call. As a WG we
>> need to find technical ways of making this possible.
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>> The problem here is illustrated by the very existence of this agendum in the
>>> recent OWL group discussions:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-10-17#Adding_missing_PROV-DM_terms_to_PROV-O
>>> (thanks for the notes guys!)
>>>
>>> #g
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12 Oct 2011, at 14:48, "Stian
>>>> Soiland-Reyes"<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:40, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>>>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-90 (namespace-in-ontology): Namespace used in ontology [Formal
>>>>>> Model]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/90
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>>>> On product: Formal Model
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OWL at
>>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl uses
>>>>>> the namespace http://w3.org/ProvenanceOntology.owl# which sound quote
>>>>>> temporary.
>>>>> Reading [1] we should probably go for a namespace like:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/10/prov
>>>>>
>>>>> We are not following the Pub-rules if we publish a first draft with
>>>>> unapproved namespaces.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we should use http://www.example.com/ for CrimeFile example,
>>>>> etc (according to RFC 2606) as they are not normative.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We will need to tell someone important to get the proper webserver
>>>>> stuff set up - but I guess before we go to first public draft the
>>>>> namespace should be sorted for the ontology.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PROV-DM says: [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> The PROV-DM namespace is http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dm/ (TBC).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any particular reason this is in /ns/ instead of the /2011/-style?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#prov-dm-namespace
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 13:20:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:46 GMT