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

Re: Evidence for use of deprecated language

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:42 -0500
Cc: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A96801C7-6BB8-4323-8EA6-3C559DCA1D5C@gmail.com>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>

On Jan 24, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> SKOS is already OWL Full, I believe, so I guess deprecating  
> deprecation would not really affect users in this case.

While it may be currently, I think it is strongly in our interest to  
ensure that it isn't OWL 1.1 Full and is OWL 1.1 DL.

I'm not sure their use of the deprecation vocabulary is a serious  
problem though - perhaps we could put in a request to have them define  
their own deprecation vocabulary instead. But we should look at the  
other areas of OWL Fullness in SKOS and do our best to remediate them  
(I've done some of this in the past, but haven't had time in a while).

Elisa's our Liaison to SWD. Might be worth taking some time to see  
what the current status of OWL-DL compatibility in SKOS is, and what  
their thinking on it is, and to perhaps probe them as to their  
willingness to potentially use a different route for deprecation  
should we decide to not have it be a builtin.

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 16:23:54 UTC

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