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 08:53:35 -0600
Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <692E2C95-C6DD-4ECA-A5AB-394E78CC8CBA@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On May 9, 2012, at 7:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 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
> 
> 
>> 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. 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"
> />

I am happy with this, and I think it nicely resolves the raised issue.

The general question of whether the versionIRI should always reference an OWL file regardless of content negotiation or not is NOT a blocker.  I am curious because I am thinking of publishing other ontologies I work on using such a scheme.  If the OntologyIRI and or versionIRI ~MUST~ reference some form of RDF/XML regardless of content negotiation than I will have to re-think my plan.

--Stephan


> (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 14:55:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:55:24 GMT