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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:02:04 +0200
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0810230402w96e39dch80b42e4c6fd41a70@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: "Rinke Hoekstra" <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Technically, we are backwards compatible. In order to be backwards
compatible we just need to be able to read the old syntax.

So we don't *need* to do as you suggest, but it would be reasonable to
argue that we should.

-Alan

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:02:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:02:48 GMT