- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:49:51 -0500
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Mike, I'm not sure what you mean by extends vs. replaces. I see imports as a way of "extending an ontology." A new version on the other hand is a kind of "replacement." However, since we are in a distributed environment we don't want to technically replace an ontology, beause that may break dependencies on the prior version. So the best we can do is say such-and-such is the latest version, and whether or not it is backward-compatibile. Perhaps what you mean is that we can't say that a new version is incompatible with a prior version. I consider this to be the default: If backward-compatibility is not explicitly stated, then incompatibility should be assumed. If I have completely missed your point, could you explain what you mean by extends and replaces? Jeff "Smith, Michael K" wrote: > > Jeff, > > I am pretty neutral on this, but it doesn't seem like the first two get to > the important > relations, which are whether one ontology is a COMPATIBLE extension or > and INCOMPATIBLE extension. I.e EXTENDS vs. REPLACES. > > I propose to add the following identifiers to the OWL namespace: > priorVersion > backCompatWith > deprecatedClass > deprecatedProperty > > We can't say REPLACES. The combination of priorVersion + backCompatibleWith > > implies EXTENDS. > > An interesting feature is that an ontology can say that it is a priorVersion > of some > other one. Right? > > - Mike > > Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E. > EDS - Austin Innovation Centre > 98 San Jacinto, #500 > Austin, TX 78701 > > * phone: +01-512-404-6683 > * mailto:michael.smith@eds.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:49:55 UTC