Re: Guide: treatment of deprecation

At 11:16 -0500 1/13/03, Christopher Welty wrote:
>I'm still here in Manchester and have talked to Peter about the
>"full-ness" of the two proposed deprecation classes, deprecatedClass and
>deprecatedProperty.  To avoid having this put an ontology in OWL Full,
>Peter considered adding them as special tags to the syntax, and also
>bundling these in as annotations.
>I considered my own needs for versioning and also spoke extensively with
>Alan Rector who absolutely requires versioning for his medical ontologies
>(it's required by law, as I understood it, so this is a stronger
>"requires" than we've considered).  Alan needs far more than what we have
>proposed, but also needs to be in Lite or DL.  He is willing to define his
>own OWL Full ontology for his versioning needs and then separate the
>versioning axioms into another ontology that will not be reasoned over.
>This is, honestly, the first time I've carefully considered the versioning
>issue, and I find that augmenting the syntax or bundling versioning into
>annotations may require people like Alan to completely bypass the OWL
>versioning stuff and build something else.  However, keeping
>deprecatedClass and deprecatedProperty as the "seeds" of a versioning
>ontology would allow him to simply augment this part of the standard.
>I consider this to be a better solution.  The net of it is that we stick
>with Jeff's proposed solution, including the (possibly unexpected)
>consequence that any ontology that uses deprecatedClass and
>deprecatedProperty are in OWL Full.  In Guide, I will simply note that
>while this is the case (using deprecation puts you in Full), users who
>wish to remain in Lite or DL can separate their versioning information
>into another ontology that imports the one being versioned.
>Peter doesn't care, and is happy that it requires no change to AS&S.  Alan
>is still considering it, and seems to be in favor of it.  I am in favor as
>well.  I realize this has already been resolved to be the solution, but
>again I'm not sure those in favor of it realized deprecation causes
>Any comments?
>Finally, as I've pointed out previously, several of these extra-logical
>features that are not in the AS&S need (don't they???) normative
>references.  Where should they go?
>Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
>IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr.
>Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA
>Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055
>Fax: +1 914.784.6078, Email:

Having deprecatedXXX only available in Full is okay with me - 
although I don't love it.  However, if we do that, please make sure 
the Features (err Overview) document moves it into Full as does Ref.

Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 18:17:12 UTC