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

Re: Evidence for use of deprecated language

From: Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:39:26 -0800
Message-ID: <4798BF3E.9080901@sandsoft.com>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Alan,

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
> 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.

Given the other uses of this particular construct that Jim points out, I 
would be very hesitant to support removal of these feature from OWL, 
even if we can convince the SKOS working group to change the SKOS 
vocabulary.  Having said that, I'll raise the issues of OWL 1.1-DL 
compatibility and taking a new approach to deprecation on our next 
telecon and report what I learn.

Thanks,

Elisa
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 16:39:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2008 16:39:40 GMT