Re: deprecation and 1st version

I have spotted a problem with the Option 2 suggestion:

At 07:45 AM 5/16/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...]
>Option 2:  Add an Example (e.g., Jeremy's OWL 1st version deprecating 
>OIL+DAML [2]).  Preface the example with, "Although unusual, the first 
>standardized version of a specification (e.g., a Recommendation) can 
>deprecate features that were inherited from precursor non-standardized 
>documents or technologies, as was the case of @@OWL deprecating features 
>inherited from DAML+OIL@@."
>
>Given our apparent preference to keep "What does it mean" brief, I guess 
>Option 2 might satisfy more of us.
>[...]
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0018, which says:
>>Although, for example OWL, in its first version, does provide:
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#appD
>>"Changes from DAML+OIL"
>>which does identify features deprecated from the member submission 
>>DAML+OIL from which OWL evolved.

I went and looked at App.D.  These are things that were removed from 
DAML+OIL, i.e., D+O features that were *obsoleted* in OWL Version 
1.  According to how we define and use "deprecate", if they were deprecated 
in OWL Version 1, then they would still be there as standard functionality 
in Version 1, but with the warning that they might be removed in a future 
version.

So we don't have an actual example of the principle, that V1 can contain 
deprecated features, those being things that were carried forward from 
precursor technology / spec, into the first standardized version, with 
warning about possible future removal.

So we are back to Option 1.  Or else someone put it into a Technique (which 
to me seemed too awkward).  Or else invent a hypothetical example, and put 
it in the examples section, to illustrate the possibility.

-Lofton.