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

I would suggest we be consistent with OWL 1 features that have
substitution in OWL 2, that include

* owl:DataRange (alternative  rdfs:Datatype)
* owl:distinctMembers (alternative owl:members)
* owl:DeprecatedClass (alternative owl:deprecated)
* owl:DeprecatedProperty (alternative owl:deprecated)

We either make them all deprecated, while still allow them in the
syntax for backwards compatibility; or make them the same level of
citizen as other vocabulary is, but pointing out that they have
equivalent representation in other forms.

Jie

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>



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

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2008 17:02:30 UTC