Implement versioning ontology

[rjyounes]

The primary value is for managing dependencies in ontologies importing gist (sub-gists, client ontologies).

See https://github.com/semanticarts/versioning-ontology.

gist will declare its version (X.x.x) and the dependency on the versioning ontology.

We also need to include the validation queries in the repository.

@Jamie-SA We will need to make the operators-ontology and the versioning ontology downloadable to enable a Protege import of gist, since gist will import the versioning ontology, which imports the operators ontology.

[rjyounes]

Protege needs the versioned imports.

DECISION:
Implement the versioning ontology and use versioned IRIs in owl:imports.

To dos:
I will submit a single PR for those assigned to me:

• @rjyounes Update gist to declare its version number and state its dependencies.
• @rjyounes - Update any relevant gist and internal documentation.
• @ryounes - Add ver and ops prefix declarations.
• @rjyounes Add queries to repository.
• @rjyounes Update bundle.yaml to run queries.
• @sa-bpelakh will submit issue to create another query to check compatibility of imported version and version dependencies. See Create query to validate version dependencies against owl:imports versioning-ontology#12.
• @sa-bpelakh will submit issue to update documentation to define in detail how the system works and best practices for use. See Create documentation of best practices for the use of the versioning ontology versioning-ontology#14.
• @uscholdm will update the versioning ontology to import 1.0.0 of the operators ontology. See Improve readme versioning-ontology#11.

I've added separate issues for these:

@Jamie-SA #983 Make the operators and versioning ontologies accessible over HTTP for gist users. I forgot to mention this one today - I believe it's needed.
@rjyounes @dylan-sa Update materialize subclass inference script to include version and version dependencies. Dylan, I have an approach in mind that will work for this.

[pmcb55]

It's great to see an explicit effort at vocab versioning - so congrats on this work!

But I notice that even though your Versioning vocab does use a prefix (i.e., @prefix ver: <https://w3id.org/semanticarts/ns/ontology/versioning/> .), it's not declaring that prefix (or it's namespace IRI) using the SHACL PrefixDeclaration class. Is this a deliberate omission, or an oversight...?

Also, just for information, but were you guys aware of the work on PLOW from Field33 (paper here: https://ebooks.iospress.nl/pdf/doi/10.3233/SSW220015), with GitHub repo here: https://github.com/field33/plow

I'm not very familiar with PLOW myself (and the Field33 website seems to have disappeared!), but I'd assume there might be some interesting overlap...

[uscholdm]

But I notice that even though your Versioning vocab does use a prefix (i.e., @Prefix ver: https://w3id.org/semanticarts/ns/ontology/versioning/ .), it's not declaring that prefix (or it's namespace IRI) using the SHACL PrefixDeclaration class. Is this a deliberate omission, or an oversight...?

@rjyounes, I don't know whether we want it or not. What do you think?

[rjyounes]

I don't know either. That was something we implemented in gist, we haven't done it for our ontologies across the board. I don't have strong feelings either way.

[uscholdm]

I don't know either. That was something we implemented in gist, we haven't done it for our ontologies across the board. I don't have strong feelings either way.

Should we bring this to the group?

[rjyounes]

It's not a gist issue. Why don't you ask Boris and the two of you can make a decision?

[pmcb55]

Just my 2c-worth of input to the above decision, but if you guys 'preferred' to define and use a prefix for this ontology (and you clearly did with ver:), i.e.:

@prefix ver: <https://w3id.org/semanticarts/ns/ontology/versioning/> .

ver:SemanticVersionNumber
	a owl:Class ;

...then wouldn't you assume consumers of the terms defined in this ontology might 'prefer' to do likewise (I sure would), so I'd like if this ontology explicitly provided that 'preference' in a machine-readable way. We all know it is just a 'preference' anyways, so where's the harm!?