- From: Quentin Reul <Quentin.H.Reul@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 07:45:27 -0500
- To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANk+SXmthQ5w-J2jJuKrgAfafekjO_fGrOZNhkhUeh0_OMnwfw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all, It may be a bit too simplistic, but OWL2 defines a property (owl:deprecated [1]) to mark any entities (classes, properties and instances) as deprecated. The range of the property is xsd:boolean. Would this not be sufficient for your needs? Kind regards, Quentin Reul [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/#a_deprecated On 2 June 2014 03:17, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: > Simon > > Thanks for the reference, not yet looked into it in details, but as > answered to Ed, we're not looking for an overkill solution :) > > > 2014-05-30 23:13 GMT+02:00 Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>: > > This paper is generally relevant to the semantics, though it doesn't solve >> the specific problem: >> >> Representing and Querying Validity Time in RDF and OWL: A Logic-Based >> Approach✩ >> Boris Motik, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, UK >> >> http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/boris.motik/pubs/m12validity-time.pdf >> >> PROV-O can handle the use case, but has the downside of being PROV-O, and >> requiring a few blank nodes (validity is a bit fuzzy). >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#invalidatedAtTime >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-o-20130430/#Revision >> >> Also, note that the ontology named by a version IRI is fixed; if the IRI >> becomes impossible to dereference, the cached content should always be >> valid; however, this may not be the case if the base IRI is used. >> > > Indeed! But the use of versionIRI in LOV vocabularies is not a general > practice, far from it : See http://bit.ly/1nH1vlq > Less than 10% of vocabularies have a owl:versionIRI declaration, and those > who use it don't always do it correctly :( > More generally the versioning policy is globally a mess ... See > http://bit.ly/RWoZUu > Very often there is no version number or date whatsoever, or they are not > consistent between the documentation and RDF files (you can have one date > in the html, another in the RDF/XML file, and yet another one in the Turtle > ... > > >> The contents of the LOV-back-machine is as valid as it ever was. >> It is possible that an unversioned ontology might have changed between >> the last capture and the 404 >> > > This should not happen if the LOV-Bot, which is tracking changes on a > daily basis, does its job properly. But due to content negotiation issues > and dozens of other reasons, it is not always the case. And very small > changes like corrections of typos can induce the LOV-Bot into uploading of > a new version, althogh the formal version information has not changed. > > But those are known issues that I would not want to blur the simple > question at hand : simply providing the information that this URI used to > be dereferenceable, but is currently no more, so if you use this vocabulary > in your data, the semantics will not be found through the vocabulary URI, > but through some version backup etc. We are in terra incognita there ... > > Bernard > > >> >> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Bernard Vatant < >> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi vocabulers >>> >>> We have more and more records in LOV of which URIs are 404, >>> unfortunately, with no replacing resource whatsoever. >>> See e.g., http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_dir.html >>> etc >>> We want to keep the record in LOV, along with backup versions, such as >>> >>> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/agg/archives/dir_dir/file_dir_2006-06-27.n3 >>> >>> We want to flag the URI some way, such as some "offlineSince" or >>> "validUntil" property, with value a xsd:date. This property would be added >>> to the VOAF vocabulary, unless someone knows about an existing property to >>> express that. There are various "valid" properties in DC terms and other >>> vocabularies, but not sure they capture the expected semantics. >>> >>> Thanks for any suggestion. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Bernard Vatant * >>> Vocabularies & Data Engineering >>> Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 >>> Skype : bernard.vatant >>> http://google.com/+BernardVatant >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> *Mondeca* >>> 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris >>> www.mondeca.com >>> Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews >>> <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > > > -- > > *Bernard Vatant* > Vocabularies & Data Engineering > Tel : + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59 > Skype : bernard.vatant > http://google.com/+BernardVatant > -------------------------------------------------------- > *Mondeca* > 35 boulevard de Strasbourg 75010 Paris > www.mondeca.com > Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews> > ---------------------------------------------------------- >
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 12:45:56 UTC