Jeff, I am pretty neutral on this, but it doesn't seem like the first two get to the important relations, which are whether one ontology is a COMPATIBLE extension or and INCOMPATIBLE extension. I.e EXTENDS vs. REPLACES. I propose to add the following identifiers to the OWL namespace: priorVersion backCompatWith deprecatedClass deprecatedProperty We can't say REPLACES. The combination of priorVersion + backCompatibleWith implies EXTENDS. An interesting feature is that an ontology can say that it is a priorVersion of some other one. Right? - Mike Michael K. Smith, Ph.D., P.E. EDS - Austin Innovation Centre 98 San Jacinto, #500 Austin, TX 78701 * phone: +01-512-404-6683 * mailto:michael.smith@eds.comReceived on Thursday, 21 November 2002 12:59:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:38 UTC