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

Re: ISSUE 5.14 Closing Text

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:53:51 -0500
Message-ID: <3DF8BF1F.B164975A@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Mike,

Thanks for pointing out the proper capitalization of  DeprecatedClass
and DeprecatedProperty. Also, I agree with your corrections to my
addtions for the OWL ontology.

As for backwardCompatibleWith, I'd be okay with it. Jim had suggested
backCompatibleWith in a previous message, if he's okay with
backwardCompatibleWith an noone has any objections, I think we can just
make that change.

As for versionInfo, I don't really see why it needs to be in the OWL
namespace now. I think the new properties handle everything that's
relevant for sharing the ontology. If you only use it for internal
configuration management and debugging then it could either be contained
in a comment or a you could create a similar property in your own
schema. Of course, this item never got discussed in the e-mail, so if
other believe there is a strong reason to keep it, I'd be willing to
withdraw it from the closing text.

Jeff

Mike Dean wrote:
> 
> 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
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 11:54:20 GMT

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