W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: deprecating an axiom

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 23:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFKQJ8k5dGHebGQ8kU+FNe1B6rYApwiixKNUK7AxF5K8vy7W2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov> wrote:

> The OWL2 syntax allows for deprecated classes and properties, although
> deprecating an entity doesn't change the semantics.
>
> Is there a standard way to deprecate an axiom? Would there be a negative
> consequences in using owl:deprecated, or should this be considered reserved?
>
> I have one project in mind, where we are providing provenance for each
> axiom - a unique identifiers and a pubmed URI. When we remove an axiom we
> want to keep it around so we don't reuse the same ID or accidentally add
> back an equivalent axiom. I expect that in order to silence the axiom we
> will have to keep the axiom in a separate ontology that is never imported
> during reasoning. I don't think there is a way to keep the axiom annotation
> around without the axiom (perhaps in OWL full, but I'm not interested in
> going that way). Another option would be to translate the axiom to an
> annotation assertion but this would be a bit hacky.
>

I've been thinking that we want a shadow of the OWL vocabulary for use in
several contexts, including this one, where all the (rdf) predicates were
annotation properties and and all the the remaining terms were bare URIs.
Then you could perform the a trivial replacement of, say, namespace, to
nullify any axiom, with fairly easy modifications to tools for display.

-Alan

If we did that then we could just translate the axioms into


>
> Is there any recommended practice here?
>
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 04:46:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:13:41 GMT