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: Tue, 8 May 2012 17:45:32 -0600
Cc: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49EDC6CB-4680-4176-9D9C-240B52080D7D@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

On May 8, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> Stephan,
> 
> On May 8, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
> 
>> I thought the OWL2 spec stated that the object of owl:versionInfo was supposed to be a literal.
>> 
>> from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ 
>> 
>> "the object of owl:versionInfo is a literal and the tag can be used to annotate classes and properties in addition to ontologies."
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> and that is why owl:versionIRI was created in OWL2 to specifically refer to IRI (and also to be functional) where the specific version of the ontology can be found.
> 
> I'll change it to versionIRI (now that I found it in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/refcard )
> 
> Do you have a pointer to the documentation for versionIRI and how it should be used?

There are descriptions at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Imports_and_Versioning and http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/How_Owl_2.0_Imports_Work.

The idea is that the version tagged ontology be available at the versionIRI.

from my understanding it should be as simple as

    <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#">
        <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">PROV Ontology</rdfs:label>
	<owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl"/>
    </owl:Ontology>

Question: Did we mean to tag the ontology with 'MMDD' for month and year?

As for content negotiation, I think it would be nice if http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/ was configured to return the tagged ontology file as RDF/XML for requests made with accept headers specifying "application/rdf+xml".  This would be very clean and would not result in the ontology specifying a HG dependent URL.

Our WD tagged ontology would have:

    <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#">
        <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">PROV Ontology</rdfs:label>
	<owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/"/>
    </owl:Ontology>

This will work with the RDF tools I am familiar with (Protege and topbraid) since they use accept headers to specifically ask for RDF/XML responses.  

If some tools aren't using accept headers and get HTML back by mistake, then I would suggest http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503.owl or http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/prov.owl, as long as its related to the working draft URL and does not reference the hg URL.

--Stephan

> I'm having trouble navigating the specs :-)
> 
>> 
>> If this IRI references that specific version of the OWL file, I would suggest using owl:versionIRI since that seems to exactly match our intention.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> -Tim
> 
>> 
>> --Stephan
>> 
>> On May 8, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>> 
>>> Currently:
>>> <owl:versionInfo rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD"/>
>>> points to the HTML, which has a link to the OWL file.
>>> Is that adequate?
>>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 23:46:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 May 2012 23:46:29 GMT