W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-371 (junzhao): timestamped provo.owl [PROV-O HTML]

From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 13:48:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJCyKRpTOL_+NKiELLYj6CphL_R=vMSr9r=Hr8BEU-w3tiMnWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
This seems good. Stian can you add it?

Thanks
Paul

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 11:02, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> Don't you think the OWL should contain something like
>>
>> <>  owl:versionIRI
>> <www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120501/ProvenanceOntology.owl>   ?
>
> Stian, yes, we should also have that!
>
> -- Jun
>
>>
>> I would +1 that as people like myself will download the OWL locally
>> for processing with say Sesame-Elmo, and it later will be important to
>> know which one it is based on.
>>
>> We just need to know the magic date to add it in advance.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jun Zhao<jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> I am happy with what we will do with the public release.
>>>
>>> And dealing with versioning for internal releases can wait if you are
>>> overwhelmed by other commitment at the moment.
>>>
>>> -- Jun
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/05/2012 00:27, Tim Lebo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jun,
>>>>
>>>> The prov.owl will be "copied" to the official w3c website directory when
>>>> the WD2 is published on Thursday, so there will be no question about what
>>>> OWL file the HTML is talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully, the "dereferencability problem" (which paul took on and we
>>>> asked Daniel to help with) will be addressed soon, which will provide the
>>>> latest OWL when requesting the terms' URIs.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to be explicit about what version of the ontology the HTML is
>>>> taking about, I can look into exposing that within every compiled draft up
>>>> to LC that is due in a few weeks. But generally, these are always in sync
>>>> because the ontology changes less frequently and the HTML is generated much
>>>> more frequently.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please let me know which aspects you need most, so that we can address the
>>>> right issues soon.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:38, Provenance Working Group Issue
>>>> Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-371 (junzhao): timestamped provo.owl [PROV-O HTML]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/371
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Jun Zhao
>>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we talk  about when or whether we will have snapshots for our
>>>>> ontology, like  ProvenanceOntology-20120430.owl? Or achieve similar
>>>>> functionality via other mechanisms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because our ontology is still work in progress, it is important to have
>>>>> the right ontology content associated with each prov-o spec public release
>>>>> or even work draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this would be something really nice to have at least for this
>>>>> upcoming public release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am happy to discuss more on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jun
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
--
Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
Assistant Professor
Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
Artificial Intelligence Section
Department of Computer Science
VU University Amsterdam
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 11:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 May 2012 11:49:09 GMT