- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:56:26 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
We need to make a rapid decision about this one way or the other. As I understand it, both Uli and Alan think that we should introduce a new ontology annotation property, but Michael thinks that we don't need to do anything. Anyone else have anything to say? Ian On 2 Apr 2009, at 13:27, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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 Monday, 6 April 2009 09:57:00 UTC