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

RE: Relaxing the Value of owl:deprecated

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:02:30 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0015DD4FE@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Hi!

Likewise, it wouldn't have been necessary to introduce the owl:deprecated
annotation property to OWL 2, but rather always use comments for signaling
deprecation. But, ok, I see that this proposal won't be voted in. 

Proposal retracted!

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:36 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Relaxing the Value of owl:deprecated
>
>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

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
=======================================================================
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
=======================================================================



Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 11:03:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 26 July 2009 11:03:11 GMT