- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:02:00 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A5EE59B2-5736-4FA1-889A-9CD0F9D809C9@rpi.edu>
Ivan,
On Apr 20, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Paul, Luc,
>
> just writing down the last check list; partially for myself. The problem is that I am at a workshop in London next week, so it will be difficult for me to do something until Friday. I want to be sure that we are still fine.
>
> ...
>
> - The WG has produced a number of documents in /ns, I *think* all of them are up-to-date. However, just to be sure: I attach a screen dump of the files I have on my disc, with dates; these are in sync with the content of the server. I do not remember any more what is the role of the dated owl and ttl files, and whether there is a need to update them to the final date.
The dated OWL files exist to be returned when one resolves the value of the owl:versionIRI found on the "latest, more abstract" ontology (or, in practical terms, "someone's copy").
The dated OWL files are also how we reference to previous versions using the prov:wasRevisionOf property.
From https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/9328abfce732/namespace/prov-o.ttl#l1244 :
<http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o#>
a owl:Ontology ;
rdfs:label "W3C PROVenance Interchange Ontology (PROV-O)"@en ;
rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/>, <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov> ;
owl:versionIRI <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20130430> ; ######################## <- Here
owl:versionInfo "Recommendation version 2013-04-30"@en ;
:specializationOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o> ;
:wasRevisionOf <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120312> . ######################## <- and here
I notice that http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-o-20120312 404s. I wonder if you removed the dated version, or if we just did not provide one? Very likely the latter.. :-)
I added prov-o-20130312.ttl/owl to hg/namespace/ so that we can backfill the wasRevisionOf link above.
Can you push that, too?
Many ongoing thanks,
Tim
>
> (Although these vocabularies are not part of /TR, I think we should really have them up-to-date at the publication)
>
> ...
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 15:02:30 UTC