- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:33:39 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim, You're not entirely spot-on about the numbers -- owl:DeprecatedClass has only about 400 hits in google (mainly documentation), and Swoogle's hits are primarily RDF definitions of the OWL vocabulary -- but I don't think numbers are particularly relevant anyway, it is rather whether the people that *do* use them, use them in some important way, and are particularly concerned about their use in combination with DL semantics... Do you have any ideas on how we can get a better overview of usage? -Rinke On 24 jan 2008, at 15:53, Jim Hendler wrote: > Alan - with due respect, I do not believe I have any obligation to > "bolster support" for not deleting features - see my actual argument > in the email -- > I'm very troubled that this WG somehow thinks we know every > implementation and project in OWL and what is in it? How arrogant! > What rules are we playing by? I remind me there are a lot more > implementations of OWL out there than the few complete reasoners > people know about, that there are OWL projects behind firewalls, > there are OWL projects you won't know about with an NDA, there are > projects interacting with OWL in the enterprise. > Let me suggest that if an open web Google search for > "DeprecatedClass" finds 2,340 hits (as of this morning), and that > doesn't include anything behind firewalls and such - maybe there are > some users. > OK. now that I've flamed and pointed out that even if I couldn't > identify any we would still be duty bound not to change -- I > actually do indeed know some users of this - in at least one project > I know, a software development group in a company I worked with is > using OWL to track software - they created subclasses of > deprecatedClass that they use to represent software from version to > version - this allows them to issue warnings from a code analyzer > when a user has use of a piece of code (they have classes > representing various aspects of code). > Swoogle also finds about 180 uses, most of them from a project at > one of the Netherlands > I also know several DoD projects that are using OWL and do use this, > as it was intended, for ontology developers to let other ontology > developers know that a particular class or property is intended not > to be used. I believe they are (or were when I heard) using Protege- > owl which supported these -- Oh look, here's one - top hit for > "deprecatedClass Protege" - as of a year ago the National Cancer > Institute Thesaurus (which I believe several of the people on this > list claim to track) was using it -- https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/protege-owl/2007-January/001080.html > Hmm, at this point I'm finding them using just Google - didn't > anyone else feel compelled to look before asserting that there were > no users? > -JH > > > On Jan 23, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> >> On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Jim Hendler wrote: >> >>> So for what it is worth, as usual, I have exactly the opposite >>> opinion on this as Peter - I think we should close this by leaving >>> deprecateion as it is -- yes it is little used, but we did have >>> support from it from some developers in OWL 1.0 >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> It would be of interest to be able to cite actual support and >> usage. In the meeting none present could remember seeing any, which >> is why we suggested that Peter write up the proposal (we suggested >> his option 1 so as to not add insult to injury by having it be that >> someone who happened to have the non-semantic use of deprecation >> wouldn't be dunned with a push into OWL Full solely for this >> offense). >> >> But if you could dig up some evidence of actual use, it would >> bolster the case that there is indeed someone who would be affected >> by this. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Alan >> >>> , it has no semantic impact (and should continue to have none) -- >>> basically, it is a human-readable way of indicating the intent for >>> new versions to overwrite old. It does no harm that I can find. >>> The charter makes it clear that "Backwards compatibility with OWL >>> is of great importance" and mandates that we don't add new >>> features that break compatibility if there is any doubt of the >>> need, I'd suggest that this implies we should also not remove any >>> old features unless we can show real need to do so. >>> So I propose we close Issue-90 as resolved by saying that no >>> change is made from OWL 1.0 to OWL 1.1 to owl:DeprecatedClass and >>> owl:DeprecatedProperty. >>> Syntax: no change >>> Semantics: no change >>> RDF mapping: no change >>> backward compatibility: maintained >>> -JH >>> >>> >>> On Jan 23, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in the teleconference on 23 January 2008, I >>>> propose to >>>> close ISSUE-90 by deprecating deprecation. >>>> >>>> This requires the following changes: >>>> >>>> Syntax: Add a note to the Differences section saying that >>>> deprecation of >>>> classes, datatypes, and properties is deprecated and is not a >>>> part of the functional syntax or structural specification. >>>> >>>> No other change. >>>> >>>> Semantics: No change. >>>> >>>> RDF Mapping: Add a new section at the (that will be much expanded >>>> later, >>>> probably) to mention that owl:DeprecatedClass and >>>> owl:DeprecatedProperty are not part of OWL 1.1. >>>> >>>> OPTION 1: Add a paragraph to Section 3 saying that triples of the >>>> form x rdf:type owl:DeprecatedClass where Type(x) contains >>>> owl:Class or rdfs:Datatype, or of the form x rdf:type >>>> owl:DeprecatedProperty where Type(x) contains >>>> owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty or >>>> owl:AnnotationProperty are removed >>>> >>>> OPTION 2: No change to Section 3, which means that use of >>>> owl:DeprecatedClass or owl:DeprecatedProperty is not in OWL >>>> 1.1. >>>> >>>> I much prefer OPTION 2. >>>> >>>> >>>> peter >>>> >>> >>> "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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > "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 > > > > ----------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 15:33:57 UTC