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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:48:37 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <887B0652-9B9C-4087-9A47-8123C7B5879F@rpi.edu>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Jun,

We were able to discuss the idea of timestamping prov.owl in our call today.

If you look at:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

you will see:

<owl:versionInfo rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD"/>

Since this is in the owl file, it will allow anyone with the file to know which working draft (or release) the owl file represents.


I've added notes to [1] so that this will be done upon the future releases.

Will this satisfy your needs? May we close the issue?

Thanks,
Tim

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Steps_taken_for_LC



On May 7, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> Jun,
> 
> I am happy to help settle the versioning issues with the OWL ontology,
> but I'm afraid that I'm not sure what your concerns are.
> 
> We have three options:
> 
> 1) hg tag the OWL file
> 2) add to the prov-o html automation to reference the OWL version that it is documenting
> 3) <> owl:versionURI
> 
> Could you please clarify your concerns so that we can scope the effort to address them?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tim
> 
> 
> On May 5, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> 
>> 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 Monday, 7 May 2012 17:49:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 17:49:08 GMT