- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:48:56 -0400
- To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Mike Dean wrote: > > > <url> priorVersion <url>. > > <url> backCompatWith <url>. > > I assume > > owl:priorVersion rdfs:domain owl:Ontology > owl:priorVersion rdfs:range owl:Ontology > owl:backCompatWith rdfs:domain owl:Ontology > owl:backCompatWith rdfs:range owl:Ontology Yes > > Assuming A backCompatWith B, then: > > * A priorVersion B. > > I assume > > owl:backCompatWith rdfs:subPropertyOf owl:priorVersion Yes > > <url> deprecates <classId> > > <url> deprecates <propertyId> > > I'd prefer to view deprecation as a unary predicate on a > class or property. Unary predicates are implemented as > Classes in RDF/OWL, so I'd introduce a class owl:Deprecated, > used as > > myont:myClass rdf:type owl:Class > myont:myClass rdf:type owl:Deprecated > > owl:Deprecated might also be applied to owl:Ontology > instances. That could work as well, but I think it makes it a little more difficult to figure out which ontology deprecated a class or property. For example, someone may be perfectly happy using version 1.0 of an ontology even though version 2.0 deprecates many of its IDs. In order to suppress warning (or error) messages when the user marks documents up using version 1.0, the tools must be able to determine that the deprecation happened in a later and not a prior version. In order to do this in your approach, applications would be required to maintain the source ontology for every RDF statement, while in mine the statement itself contains the necessary information. > Mike
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 16:49:02 UTC