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

future-proofing prov-o.owl (and "namespace concatenation")

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:25:00 -0500
Message-Id: <154F698F-60C8-435C-807A-FCE6527B9099@rpi.edu>
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan, prov-wg, OWL-in-practice gurus, and anyone concerned with the "prov ns concatenation" issue,

I've staged the prov-o ontology files to go into /ns:


The directory contains the files for {prov, inverses} \cross {versioned, unversioned} \cross {rdf/xml, turtle}

Each of the two ontologies (provo, inverses) has a owl:versionIRI, prov:wasRevisionOf, and prov:specializationOf, i.e.,

from provo http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/de8cda493917/ontology/releases/CR-prov-o-20121211/ns/prov-o.ttl#l30 :

    30 <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#>
    31     a owl:Ontology ;
    37     owl:versionIRI <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20121211.owl> ;
    38     :specializationOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.owl> ;
    39     :wasRevisionOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120724.owl> .

and from inverses http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/de8cda493917/ontology/releases/CR-prov-o-20121211/ns/prov-o-inverses.ttl#l7 :

     7 <> a owl:Ontology;
    11    owl:versionIRI        <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses-20121211.owl>;
    12    prov:wasRevisionOf    <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses-20120724.owl>;
    13    prov:specializationOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-inverses.owl> .

The PROV HTML points to the "unversioned" OWL files, specifically:

The OWL encoding of the PROV Ontology is available here (http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o.owl)


For convenience, this file (http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-inverses.owl) lists the resulting inverse properties.

I believe from this setup that consumers will be able to:
* recognize when the OWL encoding was updated (via a new owl:versionIRI), 
* find the previous version (via wasRevisionOf), and 
* find the latest version at any point in the future from their current copy of the OWL encoding (specializationOf).

1) Do you agree? Is this an acceptable arrangement?

2) Looking ahead to the "namespace concatenation" [1], I would expect that I should change the URIs for the "provo" and "inverses" ontologies, to something like:


Does that sound reasonable?


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvNamespaceManagement#Solution_2.2_Use_owl:import_and_return_full_merge_of_PROV-O_and_all_Notes
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 15:25:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 15:25:29 GMT