- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:09:53 -0500
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, Franck Cotton <franck.cotton@insee.fr>
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 23:36 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote: [...] > > Yes, something similar to what OWL uses for its own purpose > (owl:priorVersion) would be nice. It would also be interesting to attach > a date to a data set. > This seems to be a rather generic issue. Are you aware of anything that > we could borrow for this kind of issues? The TAG has taken up a related issue: XMLVersioning-41: What are good practices for designing extensible XML languages and for handling versioning? http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#XMLVersioning-41 We just had another interesting discussion of it today. Dave Orchard is working on a finding [Editorial Draft] Extending and Versioning Languages Part 1 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20060726.html It includes some UML diagrams that I have converted to OWL with XSLT. I need to review this 26 July draft and update my OWL stuff, but you might be interested in a little item I wrote up back in February... Using RDF and OWL to model language evolution Submitted by connolly on Wed, 2006-02-15 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/87 --> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/ext-vers/ This is all very much work in progress. You're more than welcome to take a look. Actually, the more relevant bit might be a 30 Sep message references from that Feb weblog item... formally defining W3C's namespace change policy options w.r.t. recent TAG versioning terminology http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Sep/0136 Wow... I see a version of changePolicy.n3 on local disk here that's not checked in... I sure hope for time to swap this all in and get more organized. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 22:10:04 UTC