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

Hi Tim and all

Thanks for the feedback. Not much time to parse all your answers right now,
I will be back on this on Wednesday.

Quick answer for now. You wrote

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

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

HA! The LOV-Bot (and myself) did not parse down to the second owl:Ontology
declaration, because it assumes there should be only one such
 ... but seems to me this is adding to the pile of issues rather than
anything. Why the first declaration, then?

You wrote :
"http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o and http://www.w3.org/ns/prov are
owl:Ontologies."
and later on
"Could you explain why you would expect http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o to be a
owl:Ontology?"
and finally
"http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o provides the resource representation of the
owl:Ontology http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o# <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#-o>"

Now I'm totally confused ... I have to munch over all this, but  all LOV
architecture is based on discovering the ontology URI (here it seems to be
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o# <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#-o> and not
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o but I'm not sure) from de-referencing its
namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
If you tell me the configuration you have enables to do that and that there
is no possible ambiguity, please help us to understand how so that we can
improve the LOV-Bot behavior accordingly ...

The bottom line is that after two years of work on this, hundreds of
vocabulary URI and namespaces parsed, dozens of different conneg
configurations found, and so many discussions and exchanges with so many
SemWeb gurus, we're still enable to settle this issue properly.

And yours is yet another configuration ...

More to come (have to pack for my night train)

Bernard


2013/6/17 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> 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#<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#-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 <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o>."?
>
> 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 <http://bvatant.blogspot.com/>
> Linked Open Vocabularies : lov.okfn.org
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca**          **                   *
> 3 cité Nollez 75018 Paris, France
> www.mondeca.com
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Meet us during the European Open Data Week <http://opendataweek.org/> in
> Marseille (June 25-28)
>
>
>
>