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

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

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:59:05 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111729ba12a7746347@[]>
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 11:19 AM -0600 12/3/02, Smith, Michael K wrote:
>Normally I think of 'A and B' as being consistent with 'A'. 
>While I know we are not providing a formal semantics for versioning, I find
>your interpretation extremely counterintuitive.  Why make it so confusing?
>I think there should be a priorVersion, a backCompatibleWith (which implies
>priorVersion), and an incompatibleWith (which also implies priorVersion).
>Something like:
>A newVersionOf B
>A compatibleWith B   ( -> A newVersionOf B)
>A incompatibleWith B ( -> A newVersionOf B)
>- Mike

Mike - as logical as this may seem, I'm not in favor because the 
intended meaning isn't clear (I don't mean formal semantics, I mean 
operational or whatever) -- that is, if I have an ontology which 
defines 100 classes, and the I create a new version and say
"" incompatibleWith B
do I mean none of the classes are the same?  Do I mean 1 class may 
have changed?  Do I mean 96 classes have changed?

In Jeff's proposal, I assume the following - if I have an old 
ontology and a new one - if I say
"" backCompatibleWith B
then I mean that none of the 100 have changed.

If I say
"" PriorVersion A.

:moose a owl:deprecatedClass.
:cow a owl:deprecatedCass.

then I know exactly what the inconsistencies are and know if I don't 
use these two classes all is fine.  Question - is this backcompat? 

so from te experience we've had with SHOE and with DAML, my intuition 
(and that's all it is) is that "incompat" would be much harder to get 
people to use consistently than "backcompatible" would

p.s. Jeff - I'd sure like us to use backCompatibleWith and not 
backCompat - as our policy to date has been complete names and we 
should have only one idiom - why introduce a new one just for this

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Heflin [mailto:heflin@cse.lehigh.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:03 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:
>>  > 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?
>>  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
>>  > 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

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 13:59:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC