W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-371 (junzhao): timestamped provo.owl [PROV-O HTML]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:38:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtnMNd-apTq6F7u+KGuxA2sJR==nWRiwE4M=TAPXcfCgcg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> The general question of whether the versionIRI should always reference an OWL file regardless of content negotiation or not is NOT a blocker.  I am curious because I am thinking of publishing other ontologies I work on using such a scheme.  If the OntologyIRI and or versionIRI ~MUST~ reference some form of RDF/XML regardless of content negotiation than I will have to re-think my plan.

I think you can relax. It must only identify the versioned ontology.
You have a choice of many formats on how to give a representation of
your ontology, I believe you could even get away with just a picture,
I can't believe there is a requirement for RDF/XML.

That said, I have not been able to find any definition for what
owl:versionIRI is in any of the OWL2 specs beyond having a range of
owl:Ontology, even going through the 12 documents or so. I think those
are examples of how not to do it, I am seldom able to find anything in
the OWL2 specs.

Let it be a lesson for ourself to not split PROV into too many specifications!

Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 09:39:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:14 UTC