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: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:10:20 +0200
Message-ID: <B908FBC8-999C-4C1E-8F9D-A547CD0677C5@vu.nl>
CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "Provenance Working Group WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Hi Stephan

So i can ask Ivan about content negotiation in TR. this is a stricter namespace. ns/prov is already setup with content negotiation

Cheers
Paul

On May 9, 2012, at 1:45, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> 
> 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 Wednesday, 9 May 2012 05:11:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 05:11:07 GMT