Re: are owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty deprecated?

Ya, but they are mapping from RDF to functional syntax, not the other
way around that Rinke is talking about.

It seems the current RDF Mapping document does not specify mapping
from  functional syntax to owl:DeprecatedClass or
owl:DeprecatedProperty, as [1] will lead to translation like

EntityAnnotation( Class(C ) Deprecated )

into

C owl:deprecated "true"^^xsd:boolean

It should have the same effect as translating it into

C rdf:type owl:DeprecatedClass

Thus, I wonder we should support the both forms in OWL2. To me,
keeping them both looks rather a redundancy.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs#Translation_of_Annotations

Jie

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have a look at table 16.
>
> [ *:x rdf:type owl:DeprecatedClass ]
> { CE(*:x) ≠ ε, and
>  ANN(*:x) ≠ ∅ or the optional triple is matched }
>
> =>
>
> EntityAnnotation( Class( *:x )
>    ANN(*:x)
>    [ Deprecated ]
> )
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:16 AM, Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ji,
>>
>> As far as I remember, the deprecation issue (ISSUE-90) was resolved by
>> leaving the owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty in the RDF
>> serialisation (and thus in the OWL Full documents as well), but have them be
>> mapped to a 'deprecated' annotation on class & property entities in the
>> functional style syntax [1].
>>
>> It appears that the RDF mapping document does not list the mapping from this
>> deprecated marker to its RDF syntax. This is either an omission, or
>> intended. [2] mentions "Note that Label, Comment, and Deprecated are
>> syntactic abbreviations, so they are not listed in Table 2. "
>>
>> -Rinke
>>
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0014.html
>> [2]
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs#Translation_of_Annotations
>>
>> On 21 okt 2008, at 20:47, Jie Bao wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I found the two terms are used in Mapping to RDF Graph. However, as we
>>> already have owl:deprecated in the Syntax, owl:DeprecatedClass and
>>> owl:DeprecatedProperty should be deprecated now.
>>>
>>> Besides, I think the Mapping to RDF Graph document (maybe also the
>>> syntax document?) should mention the list of deprecated vocabulary in
>>> OWL 2. Currently, as far as I can remember, there are proposals to
>>> deprecate owl:DataRange (replaced by rdfs:Datatype) and
>>> owl:distinctMembers (replaced by owl:members).
>>>
>>> Jie
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Jie
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2008 23:51:59 UTC