- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 21:17:29 -0400
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: tai@g5n.co.uk, richard@cyganiak.de, www-archive@w3.org
[to a much-smaller list]
> >Suffice to say, the new namespace URI is:
> >
> > http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#
> >
> >I can't imagine many people have had time to implement it yet, given that
> >I only posted about it about 16 hours ago, but for what it's worth, I'll
> >keep the old documents at the old URI for the next week or so, to allow
> >any early adopters to catch up.
>
> Consider using /additional/ versioned URIs, e.g.
>
> <http://purl.org/NET/biol/20080510/ns#>
> <http://purl.org/NET/biol/20080921/ns#>
>
> from which people can access the previous versions of your ontology. The
> version-free URI, which you have chosen now, will always refer to the
> latest
> of these versioned ontologies.
>
> The URI of the ontology, which is used within the ontology header, will
> always be the version-free one. But you may, as a hint to people, add an
> 'owl:versionInfo' annotation property to the ontology header, which
> points
> to the respective versioned URI:
>
> <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns">
> <owl:versionInfo rdf:resource="http://purl.org/NET/biol/20080510/ns" />
> </owl:Ontology>
I think this is probably a good approach, but I'd refine it a little bit
and say that the "main" namespace should not so much dereference to the
"latest" ontology, as the "latest release". There can (and probably
should) be alpha- and beta-test versions which are "later" but not (yet)
suitable replacements.
Make sense? (I've never done this with ontologies -- there could be a
problem with it -- but i think it's right.)
-- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 11 May 2008 01:19:36 UTC