- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:52:35 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 20/10/2011 10:13, Paul Groth wrote: > I agree absolutely here. I would like to see one URL for the major concepts in > the data model. It's weird to have two "official" urls. > > I wonder how we can do this? > > Can we not just have /ns/prov ? That would be my choice. #g -- > Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Graham >> Response interleaved. >> >> >> >> Professor Luc Moreau >> Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton >> Southampton SO17 1BJ >> United Kingdom >> >> On 19 Oct 2011, at 16:53, "Graham Klyne"<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: >> >>> On 12/10/2011 14:51, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> Recommended by Ivan. >>> Quite - let W3C staff handle namespace URI formats :) >>> >>>> I suggest you follow the same approach /ns/prov-o >>> But here I sense a possible problem. Why do we need a different namespace for >>> the ontology and DM, when they are essentially descriptions of the same >>> things/concetps? (There may be some additional "glue" URIs in the ontology, >>> but I'd expect everything (or almost everything) identified as part of the DM >>> to be formally described in the ontology.) >> >> >> >> I am in agreement with the spirit of this proposal. It is expressed as the >> fourth interoperability proposal we discussed at the last call. As a WG we >> need to find technical ways of making this possible. >> >> Luc >> >>> The problem here is illustrated by the very existence of this agendum in the >>> recent OWL group discussions: >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology_Meeting_2011-10-17#Adding_missing_PROV-DM_terms_to_PROV-O >>> (thanks for the notes guys!) >>> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> >>>> On 12 Oct 2011, at 14:48, "Stian >>>> Soiland-Reyes"<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:40, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker >>>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-90 (namespace-in-ontology): Namespace used in ontology [Formal >>>>>> Model] >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/90 >>>>>> >>>>>> Raised by: Stian Soiland-Reyes >>>>>> On product: Formal Model >>>>>> >>>>>> The OWL at >>>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl uses >>>>>> the namespace http://w3.org/ProvenanceOntology.owl# which sound quote >>>>>> temporary. >>>>> Reading [1] we should probably go for a namespace like: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/10/prov >>>>> >>>>> We are not following the Pub-rules if we publish a first draft with >>>>> unapproved namespaces. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I guess we should use http://www.example.com/ for CrimeFile example, >>>>> etc (according to RFC 2606) as they are not normative. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We will need to tell someone important to get the proper webserver >>>>> stuff set up - but I guess before we go to first public draft the >>>>> namespace should be sorted for the ontology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> PROV-DM says: [2] >>>>> >>>>> The PROV-DM namespace is http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dm/ (TBC). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any particular reason this is in /ns/ instead of the /2011/-style? >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/model/ProvenanceModel.html#prov-dm-namespace >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >>>>> School of Computer Science >>>>> The University of Manchester >>>>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 13:20:19 UTC