- From: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 07:10:20 +0200
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>, "Provenance Working Group WG" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B908FBC8-999C-4C1E-8F9D-A547CD0677C5@vu.nl>
Hi Stephan So i can ask Ivan about content negotiation in TR. this is a stricter namespace. ns/prov is already setup with content negotiation Cheers Paul On May 9, 2012, at 1:45, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote: > > On May 8, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > >> Stephan, >> >> On May 8, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: >> >>> I thought the OWL2 spec stated that the object of owl:versionInfo was supposed to be a literal. >>> >>> from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ >>> >>> "the object of owl:versionInfo is a literal and the tag can be used to annotate classes and properties in addition to ontologies." >> >> >> Thanks for pointing that out. >> >> >> >>> >>> and that is why owl:versionIRI was created in OWL2 to specifically refer to IRI (and also to be functional) where the specific version of the ontology can be found. >> >> I'll change it to versionIRI (now that I found it in http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/refcard ) >> >> Do you have a pointer to the documentation for versionIRI and how it should be used? > > There are descriptions at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#Imports_and_Versioning and http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/How_Owl_2.0_Imports_Work. > > The idea is that the version tagged ontology be available at the versionIRI. > > from my understanding it should be as simple as > > <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#"> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">PROV Ontology</rdfs:label> > <owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl"/> > </owl:Ontology> > > Question: Did we mean to tag the ontology with 'MMDD' for month and year? > > As for content negotiation, I think it would be nice if http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/ was configured to return the tagged ontology file as RDF/XML for requests made with accept headers specifying "application/rdf+xml". This would be very clean and would not result in the ontology specifying a HG dependent URL. > > Our WD tagged ontology would have: > > <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#"> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">PROV Ontology</rdfs:label> > <owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/"/> > </owl:Ontology> > > This will work with the RDF tools I am familiar with (Protege and topbraid) since they use accept headers to specifically ask for RDF/XML responses. > > If some tools aren't using accept headers and get HTML back by mistake, then I would suggest http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503.owl or http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503/prov.owl, as long as its related to the working draft URL and does not reference the hg URL. > > --Stephan > >> I'm having trouble navigating the specs :-) >> >>> >>> If this IRI references that specific version of the OWL file, I would suggest using owl:versionIRI since that seems to exactly match our intention. >> >> Sounds good. >> >> -Tim >> >>> >>> --Stephan >>> >>> On May 8, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: >>> >>>> Currently: >>>> <owl:versionInfo rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-2012MMDD"/> >>>> points to the HTML, which has a link to the OWL file. >>>> Is that adequate? >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 05:11:05 UTC