- From: Paolo Missier <paolo.missier@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:32:37 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: W3C Prov <public-prov-comments@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Hi Sandro, Yes I believe it does — to be addressed later today in our call, will get back to you if need more. Thank you! -Paolo On 15/12/2014 12:34, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote: >On 12/15/2014 03:27 AM, Paolo Missier wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I am helping the dev team on the DataONE project (dataone.org) >>understand >> and make the best of PROV-O in their production environment. >> One question that came up concerns versioning. Below are snippets from >> the recent conversation, for context. >> Question: how do you refer to a specific version of PROV-O? This can >>me a >> moot point as there may not be a next versionŠ but I hope you see the >> general point. > >The practice at w3.org (and I hope everywhere) is to never modify the >meaning of an identifier once people are told they may rely on it, such >as by the specification becoming a Recommendation. So if there's ever >a new version of PROV-O, it will simply add new terms, and possibly >deprecate existing ones. It wont change existing ones. > >Does that address your concern? > > -- Sandro (previously W3C staff contact for Provenance WG) > > > >> Thanks for any insight >> >> ‹Paolo >> >> >> >>> I¹m thinking we¹re going to have conflicts if we use the >>> http://www.w3.org/ns/prov# namespace to refer to different versions >>>over >>> time. I think this needs to be a discussion item on Monday¹s call. >>> >>> >>> >>>> That's all well and good, but how does the version IRI help us figure >>>> out that the prov:someConcept class that I used in 2013 is different >>> >from the one I am using today (still called prov:someConcept with >>>exact >>>> same namespace and fragment)? >>>>> Just to follow up on this thread, I now understand that the PROV >>>>> Ontology *is* in fact versioned using the OWL conventions described >>>>> here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Ontology_IRI_and_V >>>>>er >>>>> sion_IRI >>>>> >>>>> So, the PROV ontology found at http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o contains >>>>> the following property: >>>>> >>>>> owl:versionIRI <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20130430> ; >>>>> >>>>> I¹ve used the same convention when modifying the ProvONE ontology, so >>>>> I think we¹re good with respect to future versions now, and PROV is >>>>> already strongly versioned because of this property assertion. >>>>> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, how do you make revisions in the future? >>>>>> >>>>>> We definitely need to have a robust strategy for our [extension] >>>>>> ontologies and I'd like to hear ideas on that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 14:33:03 UTC