- From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:39:19 -0500
- To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi all, > Bijan Parsia and myself just had a look at your proposed usage of the > versionIRI in > >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2010Nov/0017.html > > we agree with Rinke that this might not be the standard usage of the > versionIRI, but a perfectly fine one. Cheers, Uli I naturally support this change. However, here are some thoughts about versionIRI. After re-reading the OWL 2 Specification sections related to ontology versionning, it is right that everything is geared toward version numbers. However, I did interpret it as only being a sequence of numbers that represents past and future versions of an ontology, but really as a way to differentiate different versions of that ontology; independently of what a "version" is. In fact, I may even think of these versions as different "World Views" of the same ontology: so, different versions of the same ontology that are used by different systems for different purposes. In this case, the modifications are needed for the usecase outlined in this Issue; but this doesn't necessarily means that it is a "past" or "future" version of the ontology, but just a different "view" of it needed for a (or multiple) specific usecase(s). Thanks! Take care, Fred
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 15:39:37 UTC