Re: Ontology versions

Rinke - FWIW, there is some versioning terminology in OWL 1.0 --  
whatever we do with respect to both import and versioning, we do have  
the responsibility to figure out what to do about those and to  
appropriately update - esp. if we do anything non-backwards compatible.
  btw, with respect to the import discussion, I would point out that  
this will have a very large impact if we are not backwards compatible  
(several of the large deployed ontologies, esp. in the govt sector,   
are managed as somewhat separate pieces with a main ontology that  
imports those pieces) , so we should be sure we are careful to  
document any changes and if the old mechanism is changed, to provide  
a well documented "fix"
  -JH
p.s. Please note, none of this meant to in any way comment on the  
imports issue - I never liked the old one anyway.

On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

>
> I just posted a brain-dump on ontology versioning issues on the  
> wiki at [1]. Feel free to add your own considerations etc.
> It would be good, I think, to describe the issues in some more  
> detail. Especially the way in which current tools deal with the  
> names, imports and versions, and how XML, RDF and OWL interact.
>
> -Rinke
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Ontology_Versions
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>
> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180