Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data

considering both statements could be reifiiable (by naming them  _:xxx
and _:better-xxx) then your reification could become:

_:xxx :deprecatedBy _:better-xxx

and a rule could infer that:

_:xxx rdf:type <ex:DeprecatedStatement>


...just an idea...

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Mark Wallace
<mwallace@3sigmaresearch.com> wrote:
> Could you use RDF Reification [1] to deprecate the statement?  E.g. assume
> an original statement
>
>     <ex:a> <ex:hasURI> "http://orig.com/a"
>
> and a later updated statement (asserting the better URI).
>
>     <ex:a> <ex:hasURI> "http://better.com/a"
>
> Could you use RDF reification to say the old statement is deprecated?
>
> E.g. first make a new Thing that represents the old statement (_:xxx below)
>
>     _:xxx rdf:type rdf:Statement .
>
>     _:xxx rdf:subject <ex:a> .
>
>     _:xxx rdf:predicate <ex:hasURI> .
>
>     _:xxx rdf:object "http://orig.com/a" .
>
> and then mark that statement as a deprecated statement.
>
>     _:xxx rdf:type <ex:DeprecatedStatement>
>
> Would something like that work for you?
>
>  -Mark
>
> References:
> [1]  RDF Reification.  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif.
>
> Mark Wallace
> 3-Sigma Research, Indialantic, Florida, USA
>
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
> If you want to make a statement about a URI, you need to use a literal
> "http:..." or something equivalent, not a reference <http:...>, since in the
> latter case you're talking about what the URI names, not the URI itself, and
> things can have more than one name - some of which might be deprecated, and
> some not.
>
> For example, if http:A and http:B are both names for the same thing, but the
> URI http:A is deprecated while http:B is not deprecated, then
>    <http:A> rdf:type deprecatedThing .
> implies
>   <http:B> rdf:type deprecatedThing .
> which would contradict
>   <http:B> rdf:type notDeprecatedThing .
> On the other hand
>   "http:A" rdf:type deprecatedURI .
> would not contradict
>   "http:B" rdf:type notDeprecatedURI .
> since the two URIs are different things.
>
> Yes, I know a literal can't be a subject, so you need to find a different
> way to say this in RDF.  If you had a name for the party that is doing the
> deprecating, you might say
>   deprecator deprecates "http:A" .
>   deprecator doesNotDeprecate "http:B" .
>
> Instead of saying that <http:A> is a deprecated thing, you could say
>   <http:A> rdf:type thingWithDeprecatedURI .
> but that doesn't help, does it? It doesn't tell you which of <http:A>'s URIs
> is deprecated.
> Maybe something like
>   <http:A> hasDeprecatedURI "http:A" .
>   <http:A> hasNotDeprecatedURI "http:B" .
>   <http:B> hasDeprecatedURI "http:A" .
>   <http:B> hasNotDeprecatedURI "http:B" .
>
> (and I agree, phrasing statements like this positively is probably better
> than phrasing them negatively e.g. "deprecation", but that's a separate
> issue.)
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> All
>>
>> Following my previous message mentioning lingvoj.org URIs, I had a message
>> from Earle Martin, early publisher of alternative URIs for languages at
>> downlode.org.
>> Considering that lingvoj URIs are "better" than his own URIs (thanks), he
>> wants the downlode URIs to be flagged as deprecated and replaced by the
>> matching lingvoj URIs.
>> On my side I want to keep track of those URIs at lingvoj.org, if only for
>> backward compatibility, and to acknowledge the pioneering work of Earle in
>> this domain. :-)
>>
>> How should we do that?
>>
>> My first thought was to flag the downlode.org URIs with something like
>> owl:DeprecatedIndividual
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:56:27 UTC