W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Use of owl:versionInfo to record ontology version IRI in RDF

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:56:26 +0100
Message-Id: <8914001A-09EC-495A-80EF-699C725A1861@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
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?


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC