Re: PROV-ISSUE-371 (junzhao): timestamped provo.owl [PROV-O HTML]

Hi,

> I believe version IRI should always go totally to the OWL file.
>
> +1 We discussed the option of using owl:versionInfo with version IRI.


> >
> > Do we use any content negotiation?  What if
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120503 was requested with a content
> type of "RDF/XML"?
> >
>
I think content negotiation will be out of scope for prov-o.

Thanks.

Best,
Satya


> > --Stephan
> >
> >>
> >> -Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Since this is in the owl file, it will allow anyone with the file to
> know which working draft (or release) the owl file represents.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've added notes to [1] so that this will be done upon the future
> releases.
> >>>
> >>> Will this satisfy your needs? May we close the issue?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PIL_OWL_Ontology#Steps_taken_for_LC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On May 7, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jun,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am happy to help settle the versioning issues with the OWL ontology,
> >>>> but I'm afraid that I'm not sure what your concerns are.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have three options:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) hg tag the OWL file
> >>>> 2) add to the prov-o html automation to reference the OWL version
> that it is documenting
> >>>> 3) <> owl:versionURI
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you please clarify your concerns so that we can scope the
> effort to address them?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Tim
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 5, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This seems good. Stian can you add it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jun Zhao <jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 03/05/2012 11:02, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>>>>>> Don't you think the OWL should contain something like
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <>  owl:versionIRI
> >>>>>>> <www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-o-20120501/ProvenanceOntology.owl>   ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stian, yes, we should also have that!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- Jun
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would +1 that as people like myself will download the OWL locally
> >>>>>>> for processing with say Sesame-Elmo, and it later will be
> important to
> >>>>>>> know which one it is based on.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We just need to know the magic date to add it in advance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jun Zhao<jun.zhao@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Tim,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am happy with what we will do with the public release.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And dealing with versioning for internal releases can wait if you
> are
> >>>>>>>> overwhelmed by other commitment at the moment.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -- Jun
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 02/05/2012 00:27, Tim Lebo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jun,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The prov.owl will be "copied" to the official w3c website
> directory when
> >>>>>>>>> the WD2 is published on Thursday, so there will be no question
> about what
> >>>>>>>>> OWL file the HTML is talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hopefully, the "dereferencability problem" (which paul took on
> and we
> >>>>>>>>> asked Daniel to help with) will be addressed soon, which will
> provide the
> >>>>>>>>> latest OWL when requesting the terms' URIs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If we want to be explicit about what version of the ontology the
> HTML is
> >>>>>>>>> taking about, I can look into exposing that within every
> compiled draft up
> >>>>>>>>> to LC that is due in a few weeks. But generally, these are
> always in sync
> >>>>>>>>> because the ontology changes less frequently and the HTML is
> generated much
> >>>>>>>>> more frequently.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please let me know which aspects you need most, so that we can
> address the
> >>>>>>>>> right issues soon.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Tim
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 1, 2012, at 11:38, Provenance Working Group Issue
> >>>>>>>>> Tracker<sysbot+tracker@w3.org>    wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-371 (junzhao): timestamped provo.owl [PROV-O HTML]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/371
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Raised by: Jun Zhao
> >>>>>>>>>> On product: PROV-O HTML
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Can we talk  about when or whether we will have snapshots for
> our
> >>>>>>>>>> ontology, like  ProvenanceOntology-20120430.owl? Or achieve
> similar
> >>>>>>>>>> functionality via other mechanisms?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because our ontology is still work in progress, it is important
> to have
> >>>>>>>>>> the right ontology content associated with each prov-o spec
> public release
> >>>>>>>>>> or even work draft.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think this would be something really nice to have at least
> for this
> >>>>>>>>>> upcoming public release.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I am happy to discuss more on this.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -- Jun
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl)
> >>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/
> >>>>> Assistant Professor
> >>>>> Knowledge Representation & Reasoning Group
> >>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section
> >>>>> Department of Computer Science
> >>>>> VU University Amsterdam
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>
>