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: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:14:13 -0600
Message-Id: <17676DA8-BE2F-4B06-B99F-445F34C516FF@rpi.edu>
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>


Sent from my iPad

On May 9, 2012, at 7:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I am not disagreeing this would be preferable - however we already got
> this on http://www.w3.org/ns/prov
> 

The existing content negotiation is one of the reasons I suggested this.  It keeps uniformity by using content negotiation with both the latest (at http://www.w3.org/ns/prov ) and with the version tagged ontologies.

> 
>> 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>
> 
> However I think the owl:versionIRI should give you (some format of)
> OWL file no matter how your request it.

Is this from a spec? I know of several ontologies that are published and referenced via IRIs that provide both documentation in HTML and the ontology in RDF/XML via content negotiation from the same IRI; and we are already doing so with http://www.w3.org/ns/prov, so why should a versionIRI be treated differently from an Ontology IRI?

--Stephan

> So if I copy from my text
> editor the version IRI and open it in the browser, I should get the
> OWL.
> 
> Therefore I would suggest:
> 
> <owl:versionIRI
> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/prov.owl"
> />
> 
> (Ie the same as the 'here' link on
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/ )
> 
> You can also have an rdfs:seeAlso to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/ to show the right
> version of the documentation.
> 
> 
> I think for the TR releases this is what owl:versionIRI should say, as
> that is what will be preserved 'forever'. The Mercurial site is not
> guaranteed to stay there by W3C.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:15:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:15:21 GMT