W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > June 2014

Re: How do you flag a resource which is not available anymore?

From: Quentin Reul <Quentin.H.Reul@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 07:45:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CANk+SXmthQ5w-J2jJuKrgAfafekjO_fGrOZNhkhUeh0_OMnwfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi all,

It may be a bit too simplistic, but OWL2 defines a property (owl:deprecated
[1]) to mark any entities (classes, properties and instances) as
deprecated. The range of the property is xsd:boolean. Would this not be
sufficient for your needs?

Kind regards,

Quentin Reul

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/#a_deprecated


On 2 June 2014 03:17, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:

> Simon
>
> Thanks for the reference, not yet looked into it in details, but as
> answered to Ed, we're not looking for an overkill solution :)
>
>
> 2014-05-30 23:13 GMT+02:00 Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>:
>
> This paper is generally relevant to the semantics, though it doesn't solve
>> the specific problem:
>>
>> Representing and Querying Validity Time in RDF and OWL: A Logic-Based
>> Approach✩
>> Boris Motik, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, UK
>>
>>  http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/boris.motik/pubs/m12validity-time.pdf
>>
>> PROV-O can handle the use case, but has the downside of being PROV-O, and
>> requiring a few blank nodes (validity is a bit fuzzy).
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#invalidatedAtTime
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#Revision
>>
>> Also, note that the ontology named by a version IRI is fixed;  if the IRI
>> becomes impossible to dereference, the cached content should always be
>> valid;  however, this may not be the case if the base IRI is used.
>>
>
> Indeed! But the use of versionIRI in LOV vocabularies is not a general
> practice, far from it : See http://bit.ly/1nH1vlq
> Less than 10% of vocabularies have a owl:versionIRI declaration, and those
> who use it don't always do it correctly :(
> More generally the versioning policy is globally a mess ... See
> http://bit.ly/RWoZUu
> Very often there is no version number or date whatsoever, or they are not
> consistent between the documentation and RDF files (you can have one date
> in the html, another in the RDF/XML file, and yet another one in the Turtle
> ...
>
>
>> The contents of the LOV-back-machine is as valid as it ever was.
>>  It is possible that an unversioned ontology  might have changed between
>> the last capture and the 404
>>
>
> This should not happen if the LOV-Bot, which is tracking changes on a
> daily basis, does its job properly. But due to content negotiation issues
> and dozens of other reasons, it is not always the case. And very small
> changes like corrections of typos can induce the LOV-Bot into uploading of
> a new version, althogh the formal version information has not changed.
>
> But those are known issues that I would not want to blur the simple
> question at hand : simply providing the information that this URI used to
> be dereferenceable, but is currently no more, so if you use this vocabulary
> in your data, the semantics will not be found through the vocabulary URI,
> but through some version backup etc. We are in terra incognita there ...
>
> Bernard
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Bernard Vatant <
>> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi vocabulers
>>>
>>> We have more and more records in LOV of which URIs are 404,
>>> unfortunately, with no replacing resource whatsoever.
>>> See e.g., http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_dir.html
>>> etc
>>> We want to keep the record in LOV, along with backup versions, such as
>>>
>>> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agg/archives/dir_dir/file_dir_2006-06-27.n3
>>>
>>> We want to flag the URI some way, such as some "offlineSince" or
>>> "validUntil" property, with value a xsd:date. This property would be added
>>> to the VOAF vocabulary, unless someone knows about an existing property to
>>> express that. There are various "valid" properties in DC terms and other
>>> vocabularies, but not sure they capture the expected semantics.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any suggestion.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Bernard Vatant *
>>> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
>>> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
>>> Skype : bernard.vatant
>>> http://google.com/+BernardVatant
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Mondeca*
>>> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris
>>> www.mondeca.com
>>> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews
>>> <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Bernard Vatant*
> Vocabularies & Data Engineering
> Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
> Skype : bernard.vatant
> http://google.com/+BernardVatant
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Mondeca*
> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris
> www.mondeca.com
> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 12:45:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC