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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:15:23 -0500
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E5493D59-C9C7-40E8-9C08-9D380F987FBE@w3.org>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

On Nov 20, 2012, at 13:11 , Timothy Lebo wrote:

> 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?
> 

That would be my preference, unless we hit some practical issue.

Ivan



> 
>>> 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
>>>>> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 18:15:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 18:15:51 GMT