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: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:56:14 -0500
Message-Id: <60969F1B-B0C3-4150-98B6-A81D746F7F88@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Ahh right - I forget - I don't mean no change to the documents - I  
mean no change to OWL 1.0's implementation (i.e. Full) -- I've  
previously proposed, and been ignored by this WG, that somewhere we  
could provide a diff to OWL 1.0 and that that way anything we don't  
change, requires no changing ... so Rincke is right - however, in OWL  
1.0 we had a set of things we gave no semantics to and said were  
there for users and implementors to use as needed - all the  
versioning properties were included in that - so I propose we simply  
keep them as such.

On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> On 24 jan 2008, at 04:42, Jim Hendler wrote:
> *snip*
>> Syntax: no change
>> Semantics: no change
>> RDF mapping: no change
>
> Just to be clear: at the current state of the documents this would  
> mean that backward compatibility is dropped (i.e. no change equals  
> Peter's proposal)
>
> -Rinke
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>
> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>

"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 14:56:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2008 14:56:48 GMT