W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: proposal to close (as RESOLVED) ISSUE-90 (class and property deprecation)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:42:54 -0500
Message-Id: <6EDD8026-3589-40D0-8C15-1CBCBB7B1391@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
So for what it is worth, as usual, I have exactly the opposite  
opinion on this as Peter - I think we should close this by leaving  
deprecateion as it is -- yes it is little used, but we did have  
support from it from some developers in OWL 1.0, it has no semantic  
impact (and should continue to have none) -- basically, it is a human- 
readable way of indicating the intent for new versions to  overwrite  
old.  It does no harm that I can find.  The charter makes it clear  
that "Backwards compatibility with OWL is of great importance" and  
mandates that we don't add new features that break compatibility if  
there is any doubt of the need, I'd suggest that this implies we  
should also not remove any old features unless we can show real need  
to do so.
   So I propose we close Issue-90 as resolved by saying that no  
change is made from OWL 1.0 to OWL 1.1 to owl:DeprecatedClass and  
Syntax: no change
Semantics: no change
RDF mapping: no change
backward compatibility: maintained

On Jan 23, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> As I mentioned in the teleconference on 23 January 2008,  I propose to
> close ISSUE-90 by deprecating deprecation.
> This requires the following changes:
> Syntax: Add a note to the Differences section saying that  
> deprecation of
>  	classes, datatypes, and properties is deprecated and is not a
>  	part of the functional syntax or structural specification.
> 	No other change.
> Semantics: No change.
> RDF Mapping: Add a new section at the (that will be much expanded  
> later,
>     	     probably) to mention that owl:DeprecatedClass and
>     	     owl:DeprecatedProperty are not part of OWL 1.1.
>    OPTION 1: Add a paragraph to Section 3 saying that triples of the
>  	     form x rdf:type owl:DeprecatedClass where Type(x) contains
>  	     owl:Class or rdfs:Datatype, or of the form x rdf:type
>  	     owl:DeprecatedProperty where Type(x) contains
>  	     owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty or
>  	     owl:AnnotationProperty are removed
>    OPTION 2: No change to Section 3, which means that use of
>    	     owl:DeprecatedClass or owl:DeprecatedProperty is not in OWL
>    	     1.1.
> I much prefer OPTION 2.
> peter

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 03:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC