W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Relaxing the Value of owl:deprecated

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:56:40 -0400
Message-Id: <6E12C65F-4A3B-4EC0-8A19-B6625035E9BF@cs.rpi.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: "<schneid@fzi.de>" <schneid@fzi.de>, "<public-owl-wg@w3.org>" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As rare as it is that I agree with Peter, I think he is right here. It  
might, however, be worth noting this at the point deprecated is  
introduced so that we don't have to explain it over and over as I've  
seen a number of people do what Michael suggests below...

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 24, 2009, at 8:36 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com 
 > wrote:

> From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
> Subject: Relaxing the Value of owl:deprecated
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:52:07 -0500
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> In a sense, this is a sort of implementation feedback.
>>
>> When I thought about deprecation of a term last night, it came to  
>> mind
>> that, in general, writing something like
>>
>>  ex:oldIRI owl:deprecated "as of version 1.23" .
>>
>> would be nice to have sometimes (as in Javadoc).
>> But we basically seem
>> to restrict our new deprecation annotation property to values being  
>> the
>> literal "true"^^xsd:boolean. Looks like a missed chance to me.
>>
>> Looking closer, this restriction does not seem to be all too deep  
>> in our
>> spec. The reverse RDF mapping maps owl:Deprecated(Class|Property) to
>> owl:deprecated "true"^^xsd:boolean, but elsewhere, the only other
>> relevant place that I found which talks about "true"^^boolean is in
>> Section 5.5 of the Structural Spec:
>>
>> [[
>>   An annotation with the owl:deprecated annotation property
>> -> and the value equal to "true"^^xsd:boolean
>>   can be used to specify that an IRI is deprecated.
>> ]]
>>
>> So my question: Provided that there are no technical issues that I
>> missed, why not simply remove this restriction (the middle part of  
>> the
>> cited sentence above)? After all, owl:deprecated is an annotation
>> property, so it should be fine to use it with whatever value people
>> think is best suited for their needs?
>>
>> Btw, in the RDF-Based Semantics, the rdfs:range of owl:deprecated is
>> defined as rdfs:Resource, so it's unrestricted, but there is an
>> informative note that one should better only use it with  
>> "true"^^boolean
>> in compliance with the rest of the spec. In case of a change, I would
>> then adjust this passage as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>
>
> I don't see that there is any benefit to be gained here.  You might as
> well just have the same information carried as
>
>   ex:oldIRI owl:deprecated xsd:true .
>   ex:oldIRI rdfs:comment "deprecated as of version 1.23" .
>
> peter
>
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 12:57:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 July 2009 12:57:45 GMT