Re: PROV-O in LOV : URI, namespace and versions

Hi, Bernard,

I'm cc'ing the prov comments list to archive your comments.

@PROV-WG, I might need help refreshing on our provenance-of-provenance design to fulfill Bernard's needs)
@Ivan, we have a 404 on http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120312 but it needs to be there like http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20130430 is)
@PROV-WG-chairs, are we still able to (or should we) use the tracker?

I respond within...

On Jun 17, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:

> Hi Tim and Daniel
> 
> I updated today the LOV record for PROV-O [1]. Actually this should have been done well before, but the new version(s) had not been captured by the LOV-Bot, due mainly to a confusing (for me and the LOV-Bot at least) namespaces and URI policy.
> I have several issues with this (important) vocabulary.

Thanks for reporting your challenges with consuming the PROV namespace. If PROV doesn't suit LOV, then it's a clear indicator that we aren't following common practice.
I hope we can clear up the issues, either on your side or on ours.
I've started a section on the semweb wiki to document your questions and their answers: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ#The_PROV_URIs

> 
> As I write in the vocabulary "review" : " Note that the namespace of the vocabulary is http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#, but its URI is http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o. But the RDF file declares <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> a owl:Ontology, which seems confusing at least."


yes, the namespace of the vocabulary is http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#

http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o and http://www.w3.org/ns/prov are owl:Ontologies.

From the comment itself, I'm not sure what is confusing. Could you elaborate? (or, do the following three cover your concerns?)


> 
> ... In more details : 
> 
> 1. The namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# does not dereference to the ontology, but to a general documentation page about various documents using the namespace, including the ontology itself.

Yes.

> How am I supposed to GET the RDF description of e.g., http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Activity, from the namespace URI?

In short, use content negotiation.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ#GET.27ing_an_RDF_description_of_a_PROV_term
curl -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" -L http://www.w3.org/ns/prov


> 
> 2. In the RDF at http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o I read  <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> a owl:Ontology 
> one should expect  <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o> a owl:Ontology seems to me …

There are two instances of owl:Ontology, at lines:

  30 <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>
  31     a owl:Ontology .

1237 <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#>
1238     a owl:Ontology ;

Could you explain why you would expect http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o to be a owl:Ontology?

As it stands, http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o provides the resource representation of the owl:Ontology http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#


> 
> 3. The previous versions (Candidate Recommandation and Proposed Recommendation) are available as HTML documentation, but the respective RDF versions are not available.





> The link to the OWL version redirects to the current version.

Yes, to restate: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-prov-o-20130312/ points to http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o in "The OWL encoding of the PROV Ontology is available here."?

The RDF representations for those versions are sitting around, so if you could describe in more detail how you'd like to be able to access them, perhaps we can update the provenance-of-provenance to 
suit your use case.

From within http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o,  the owl:versionIRI and prov:wasDerivedFrom are intended to provide access to the previous versions.
But, I'm seeing a 404! :-)


<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#>
    a owl:Ontology ;
    rdfs:comment """This document is published by the Provenance Working Group (http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Main_Page). 

If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-prov-comments@w3.org (subscribe public-prov-comments-request@w3.org, archives http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-c
omments/). All feedback is welcome."""@en ;
    rdfs:label "W3C PROVenance Interchange Ontology (PROV-O)"@en ;
    rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/>, <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov> ;
    owl:versionIRI <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20130430> ;
    owl:versionInfo "Recommendation version 2013-04-30"@en ;
    :specializationOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o> ;
    :wasRevisionOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120312> .


Thanks again for your comments. I hope that we can iron out some of the wrinkles that you ran into.

Regards,
Tim Lebo



> 
> Thanks for any clarification. I understand that since we deal now with a W3C Recommandation, if anything needs to be fixed, the process is likely to be long :)
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_prov-o.html
> 
> 
> Bernard Vatant
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> Blog : the wheel and the hub
> Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Mondeca                             
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Meet us during the European Open Data Week in Marseille (June 25-28)
> 
> 
>