- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:38:57 +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>
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