- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:22:15 +0200
- To: Quentin Reul <Quentin.H.Reul@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVH8E27KBy2tJUfZ86y6FzEVgwwmiLXKKu+fqkVLR8d+6g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Quentin The way I understood it, owl:deprecated is more designed to mark elements in a vocabulary as deprecated, but not the entire vocabulary. Moreover, owl:deprecated should be used in a controlled versioning workflow, by the vocabulary publisher herself, and in the best of worlds, it goes with a dcterms:isReplacedBy (but as said above, this is not unfortunately a very frequent practice). Here we deal with URIs which just disappear "puff" in a smoke like URIs do, by neglect of their owner, hosting not paid, site reorganization whatever. And we have to make this observation and declaration from outside : the resource we are speaking about used to live at this URI, but for some non documented reason it's not there anymore. 2014-06-02 14:45 GMT+02:00 Quentin Reul <Quentin.H.Reul@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> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -- *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 13:23:17 UTC