Re: ISSUE 5.14 Closing Text

Jeff,

This looks good.  A few comments:

> priorVersion
> backCompatibleWith
> incompatibleWith
> deprecatedClass
> deprecatedProperty

These should be DeprecatedClass and DeprecatedProperty,
consistent with the later usage.  If we're spelling things
out, I'd prefer backwardCompatibleWith.

> In addition, we will remove the following identifier from the OWL namespace.
> 
> versionInfo

I'm opposed to this.  I've found daml:versionInfo (e.g.
with CVS identifiers) very helpful for configuration
management and debugging, and I don't think it conflicts
with the newer constructs.

> <owl:backCompatWith rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/vehicle-1.0">

should be backCompatibleWith (or backwardCompatibleWith)

> <!-- assume Automobile is now the preferred term for Car -->

It would be good to capture this in the graph, e.g.

  <owl:DeprecatedClass rdf:ID="Car">
    <rdfs:comment>Automobile is now preferred</rdfs:comment>
  </owl:DeprecatedClass>

> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="DeprecatedClass">
>    <rdfs:subClassOf resource="Class" />
> </rdfs:Class>

should be rdf:resource="#Class"

> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="DeprecatedProperty">
>    <rdfs:subClassOf resource="Property" />
> </rdfs:Class>

should be rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"

Thanks!

	Mike