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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:49:10 -0500
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <D48D8E33-EEEB-4980-956F-8213B09B98F1@gmail.com>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> 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

Hi Jim,

It would be of interest to be able to cite actual support and usage.  
In the meeting none present could remember seeing any, which is why we  
suggested that Peter write up the proposal (we suggested his option 1  
so as to not add insult to injury by having it be that someone who  
happened to have the non-semantic use of deprecation wouldn't be  
dunned with a push into OWL Full solely for this offense).

But if you could dig up some evidence of actual use, it would bolster  
the case that there is indeed someone who would be affected by this.

Regards,

-Alan

> , 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  
> owl:DeprecatedProperty.
> Syntax: no change
> Semantics: no change
> RDF mapping: no change
> backward compatibility: maintained
>   -JH
>
>
> 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 04:49:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2008 04:49:26 GMT