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

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

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:40:21 -0400
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B6EDE25-3554-4338-BF63-5B56D8DB406A@rpi.edu>
To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Jun,

May we close this issue?
You and the group seem to be happy with the following.

(I will be following the steps enumerated at [1] when publishing the next release, which includes the following)

<owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD/prov.owl"/>

where MM and DD will be the appropriate values.

Thanks,
Tim

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Steps_taken_for_LC

On May 9, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

>> 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
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:40:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:40:57 GMT