W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Guide: treatment of deprecation

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:17:04 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f29ba48f91f74f3@[]>
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 11:16 -0500 1/13/03, Christopher Welty wrote:
>I'm still here in Manchester and have talked to Peter about the
>"full-ness" of the two proposed deprecation classes, deprecatedClass and
>deprecatedProperty.  To avoid having this put an ontology in OWL Full,
>Peter considered adding them as special tags to the syntax, and also
>bundling these in as annotations.
>I considered my own needs for versioning and also spoke extensively with
>Alan Rector who absolutely requires versioning for his medical ontologies
>(it's required by law, as I understood it, so this is a stronger
>"requires" than we've considered).  Alan needs far more than what we have
>proposed, but also needs to be in Lite or DL.  He is willing to define his
>own OWL Full ontology for his versioning needs and then separate the
>versioning axioms into another ontology that will not be reasoned over.
>This is, honestly, the first time I've carefully considered the versioning
>issue, and I find that augmenting the syntax or bundling versioning into
>annotations may require people like Alan to completely bypass the OWL
>versioning stuff and build something else.  However, keeping
>deprecatedClass and deprecatedProperty as the "seeds" of a versioning
>ontology would allow him to simply augment this part of the standard.
>I consider this to be a better solution.  The net of it is that we stick
>with Jeff's proposed solution, including the (possibly unexpected)
>consequence that any ontology that uses deprecatedClass and
>deprecatedProperty are in OWL Full.  In Guide, I will simply note that
>while this is the case (using deprecation puts you in Full), users who
>wish to remain in Lite or DL can separate their versioning information
>into another ontology that imports the one being versioned.
>Peter doesn't care, and is happy that it requires no change to AS&S.  Alan
>is still considering it, and seems to be in favor of it.  I am in favor as
>well.  I realize this has already been resolved to be the solution, but
>again I'm not sure those in favor of it realized deprecation causes
>Any comments?
>Finally, as I've pointed out previously, several of these extra-logical
>features that are not in the AS&S need (don't they???) normative
>references.  Where should they go?
>Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
>IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr.
>Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA
>Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055
>Fax: +1 914.784.6078, Email: welty@us.ibm.com

Having deprecatedXXX only available in Full is okay with me - 
although I don't love it.  However, if we do that, please make sure 
the Features (err Overview) document moves it into Full as does Ref.

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 Monday, 13 January 2003 18:17:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC