- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 11:36:54 -0400
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Jun, I am happy to help settle the versioning issues with the OWL ontology, but I'm afraid that I'm not sure what your concerns are. We have three options: 1) hg tag the OWL file 2) add to the prov-o html automation to reference the OWL version that it is documenting 3) <> owl:versionURI Could you please clarify your concerns so that we can scope the effort to address them? Thanks, Tim On May 5, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > This seems good. Stian can you add it? > > Thanks > Paul > > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 03/05/2012 11:02, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>> Don't you think the OWL should contain something like >>> >>> <> owl:versionIRI >>> <www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120501/ProvenanceOntology.owl> ? >> >> Stian, yes, we should also have that! >> >> -- Jun >> >>> >>> I would +1 that as people like myself will download the OWL locally >>> for processing with say Sesame-Elmo, and it later will be important to >>> know which one it is based on. >>> >>> We just need to know the magic date to add it in advance. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jun Zhao<jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> Hi Tim, >>>> >>>> I am happy with what we will do with the public release. >>>> >>>> And dealing with versioning for internal releases can wait if you are >>>> overwhelmed by other commitment at the moment. >>>> >>>> -- Jun >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02/05/2012 00:27, Tim Lebo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jun, >>>>> >>>>> The prov.owl will be "copied" to the official w3c website directory when >>>>> the WD2 is published on Thursday, so there will be no question about what >>>>> OWL file the HTML is talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Hopefully, the "dereferencability problem" (which paul took on and we >>>>> asked Daniel to help with) will be addressed soon, which will provide the >>>>> latest OWL when requesting the terms' URIs. >>>>> >>>>> If we want to be explicit about what version of the ontology the HTML is >>>>> taking about, I can look into exposing that within every compiled draft up >>>>> to LC that is due in a few weeks. But generally, these are always in sync >>>>> because the ontology changes less frequently and the HTML is generated much >>>>> more frequently. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please let me know which aspects you need most, so that we can address the >>>>> right issues soon. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:38, Provenance Working Group Issue >>>>> Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-371 (junzhao): timestamped provo.owl [PROV-O HTML] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/371 >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Jun Zhao >>>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we talk about when or whether we will have snapshots for our >>>>>> ontology, like ProvenanceOntology-20120430.owl? Or achieve similar >>>>>> functionality via other mechanisms? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because our ontology is still work in progress, it is important to have >>>>>> the right ontology content associated with each prov-o spec public release >>>>>> or even work draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this would be something really nice to have at least for this >>>>>> upcoming public release. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am happy to discuss more on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Jun >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > -- > Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) > http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ > Assistant Professor > Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group > Artificial Intelligence Section > Department of Computer Science > VU University Amsterdam > >
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 15:37:33 UTC