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

Re: future-proofing prov-o.owl (and "namespace concatenation")

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:11:38 -0500
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <24BC2F4F-4FD8-4EB7-B887-CF373CD5A73E@rpi.edu>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan,


>>> - The .owl extension goes to RDF/XML files, I presume.
>> 
>> Yes. Are you suggesting to add .rdf in addition, or to replace .owl with .rdf?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Actually, as I said below, I was suggesting to use extension-less URI-s, then populate /ns with .rdf and .owl (with identical content) and .ttl for a turtle version. I think that is what we have already.


Agreed.


> 
> 
>>> I wonder whether we should not use extension-less URI-s everywhere, eg, http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120724, and let conneg work to choose among RDF/XML or turtle versions.
>> 
>> 
>> That is what I would prefer. But I think we're bending certain ways to help the bad tooling that is out there.
>> The tradeoff that is in place is to point to the extension less URIs using specializationOf.
> 
> You mean that is what you will do (at the moment, all the URI-s have an extension)



I meant that I would prefer to not use extension-less URI-s everywhere and let conneg work.
Are you saying to just do it that way?


>> I can try it on Protege. We could find someone to try it on TopBraid Composer. What others?
>> 
> 
> Pellet, at the minimum, but also browsers like TimBl's tabulator (although I suspect tabulator is fine, it will do conneg)
> 
> 


I started a list at http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Tools_to_check_conneg_with

-Tim


>>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:25 , Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ivan, prov-wg, OWL-in-practice gurus, and anyone concerned with the "prov ns concatenation" issue,
>>>> 
>>>> I've staged the prov-o ontology files to go into /ns:
>>>> 
>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/ontology/releases/CR-prov-o-20121211/ns
>>>> 
>>>> The directory contains the files for {prov, inverses} \cross {versioned, unversioned} \cross {rdf/xml, turtle}
>>>> 
>>>> Each of the two ontologies (provo, inverses) has a owl:versionIRI, prov:wasRevisionOf, and prov:specializationOf, i.e.,
>>>> 
>>>> from provo http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/de8cda493917/ontology/releases/CR-prov-o-20121211/ns/prov-o.ttl#l30 :
>>>> 
>>>>   30 <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   31     a owl:Ontology ;
>>>>   37     owl:versionIRI <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20121211.owl
>>>>> ;
>>>> 
>>>>   38     :specializationOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.owl
>>>>> ;
>>>> 
>>>>   39     :wasRevisionOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120724.owl> .
>>>> 
>>>> and from inverses http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/de8cda493917/ontology/releases/CR-prov-o-20121211/ns/prov-o-inverses.ttl#l7 :
>>>> 
>>>>    7 <> a owl:Ontology;
>>>>   11    owl:versionIRI        <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses-20121211.owl
>>>>> ;
>>>> 
>>>>   12    prov:wasRevisionOf    <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses-20120724.owl
>>>>> ;
>>>> 
>>>>   13    prov:specializationOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses.owl> .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The PROV HTML points to the "unversioned" OWL files, specifically:
>>>> 
>>>> [[
>>>> The OWL encoding of the PROV Ontology is available here (http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.owl)
>>>> ]]
>>>> 
>>>> and 
>>>> 
>>>> [[
>>>> For convenience, this file (http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-inverses.owl) lists the resulting inverse properties.
>>>> ]]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I believe from this setup that consumers will be able to:
>>>> * recognize when the OWL encoding was updated (via a new owl:versionIRI), 
>>>> * find the previous version (via wasRevisionOf), and 
>>>> * find the latest version at any point in the future from their current copy of the OWL encoding (specializationOf).
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Do you agree? Is this an acceptable arrangement?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Looking ahead to the "namespace concatenation" [1], I would expect that I should change the URIs for the "provo" and "inverses" ontologies, to something like:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#
>>>> and
>>>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses#
>>>> 
>>>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvNamespaceManagement#Solution_2.2_Use_owl:import_and_return_full_merge_of_PROV-O_and_all_Notes
>>>> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 18:12:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 18:12:03 GMT