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

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

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 12:03:26 -0500
Message-ID: <3DECE3DE.948657BB@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

"Smith, Michael K" wrote:
> 
> > As you point out above, my proposal can
> > already express these two notions.
> 
> How do I say 'A not backCompatWith B' using your terms?

In my terms, A priorVersion B without A backCompatWith B is the same as
A not backCompatWith B. While A priorVersion B and A backCompatWith B
means they are compatible. Since a version can only either be compatible
or incompatible, I only see the need for 1 bit of information.

However, if you think it would make things clearer to have the
"complement" of backCompatWith, that's fine. It certainly doesn't break
anything, it just adds another symbol to our vocabulary. What do you
suggest we call it? incompatWith? Why don't you propose specific wording
for an addendum to my proposal, and the WG can vote on whether or not to
add it?

Jeff

> 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 12:03:29 GMT

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