- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 13:52:17 -0400
- To: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Jun, One additional note… On May 7, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Jun, > > We were able to discuss the idea of timestamping prov.owl in our call today. > > If you look at: > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl > > you will see: > > <owl:versionInfo rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD"/> This will resolve to the PROV-O HTML page that describes the release, e.g.: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503 -Tim > > Since this is in the owl file, it will allow anyone with the file to know which working draft (or release) the owl file represents. > > > I've added notes to [1] so that this will be done upon the future releases. > > Will this satisfy your needs? May we close the issue? > > Thanks, > Tim > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Steps_taken_for_LC > > > > On May 7, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > >> 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 17:52:48 UTC