- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 21:26:48 +0100
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I believe version IRI should always go totally to the OWL file. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 20:27:38 UTC