W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

RE: LANG: Proposal to close ontology versioning (ISSUE 5.14)

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:28:45 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322141241A5D4@USPLM207>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

> As you point out above, my proposal can
> already express these two notions.

How do I say 'A not backCompatWith B' using your terms?

You stated that if

A priorVersion B

then you should not rely on compatibility.  I don't want to 
suggest it, I want to assert that they are definitely not compatible.

While I am fairly neutral regarding the terms you pick, 
'priorVersion' suggests a temporal relation between versions
and nothing more.  At least to me.

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Heflin [mailto:heflin@cse.lehigh.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:41 AM
To: Smith, Michael K
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: LANG: Proposal to close ontology versioning (ISSUE 5.14)


"Smith, Michael K" wrote:
> 
[snip]
>
> Extends = priorVersion and backCompatWith. The new version is compatible.
> All of the old entailments hold.
> 
> Replaces = priorVersion and not backCompatwith. In the new version it is
not
> the case that all of the old entailments hold.
> 
> Of course these are just statements of intention, with no logical force.
> 

Mike, are you suggesting that we use Extends and Replaces instead of
priorVersion and backCompatWith? As you point out above, my proposal can
already express these two notions. I think Extends could be confusing,
because imports already provides a form of ontology extension, but I
would be interested in hearing the opinions of others.

Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 10:29:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT