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

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

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:47:10 -0600
Cc: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CC5185B4-6797-4515-B31B-100309F79947@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

On May 7, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> Jun,
> 
> One additional note…
> 
> 
> On May 7, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> 
>> 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"/>
> 
> This will resolve to the PROV-O HTML page that describes the release, e.g.:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503

Do we use any content negotiation?  What if http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503 was requested with a content type of "RDF/XML"?

--Stephan

> 
> -Tim
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 18:48:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 18:48:16 GMT