- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:27:17 -0400
- To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I was thinking about the same thing. There is pre-existing use of owl:versionInfo and that will get misinterpreted in OWL 2. I think the use of a distinct property makes sense. -Alan On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear OWL, > Matthew Horridge found an 'unwanted feature' in the current spec when > implementing it in the OWL API [1], see message below. This was discussed > with Boris, who suggested: > "I see that http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#versionInfo-def says that the > value > should be a string. I guess this wouldn't be that difficult to change: we > could > have something like owl:versionURI in OWL 2. " > > I guess we should do this sooner rather than later? > Cheers, Uli > [1] http://owlapi.sourceforge.net/ > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk> > Date: 1 April 2009 13:48:37 BST > To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk> > Subject: Use of owl:versionInfo to record ontology version IRI in RDF > Hi, > > I realised that the OWL API wasn't translating an ontology's version IRI > into RDF, and I was about to fix this. However, I saw that the current > mapping uses owl:versionInfo from OWL 1 to encode this. I just wondered > whether or not another property was considered. The reason is that the OWL > 1 spec states that the value of the versionInfo property is a string. > Because of this, it might not be possible to parse the versionInfo property > of an existing ontology into an IRI. There might also be several > versionInfo annotations on an ontology, and in this case it's not clear > which one to choose. > > As an example of an ontology that would be difficult to parse correctly, > consider the pizza ontology at > > http://www.co-ode.org/ontologies/pizza/2007/02/12/pizza.owl > > Rightly or wrongly, this ontology has three versionInfo annotations and all > of them are general comments about what went into successive versions of the > ontology. I've seen other ontologies like this as well. > > Would it be possible (if it's not too late, wouldn't cause too much trouble > etc.) to coin a new piece of vocab to store the version URI of an ontology? > Something like ontologyVersion? Also, would it be possible to specify > what to do when there are multiple version IRIs? > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7.4.1 owl:versionInfo > An owl:versionInfo statement generally has as its object a string giving > information about this version, for example RCS/CVS keywords. This statement > does not contribute to the logical meaning of the ontology other than that > given by the RDF(S) model theory. > > Although this property is typically used to make statements about > ontologies, it may be applied to any OWL construct. For example, one could > attach a owl:versionInfo statement to an OWL class. > > NOTE: owl:versionInfo is an instance of owl:AnnotationProperty. > >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 12:28:19 UTC