- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:47:10 -0600
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On May 7, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > 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 Do we use any content negotiation? What if http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503 was requested with a content type of "RDF/XML"? --Stephan > > -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 18:48:15 UTC