Welcome to the
Semantic Web Interest Group
scratchpad generated automatically from discussions on
IRC at
Freenode channel #swig 2001-2018 approx
by the chump bot.
sbp: Let's say I come up with a way of expressing a CompoundInverseFunctionalProperty in RDF. In fact, I already came up with some rules for just such a thing, but I didn't publish the terms in a schema because of the OWL 1.1 work that's going on on the same subject. sbp: The problem is that I might choose one way of doing it, and OWL 1.1 might end up with a) exactly the same way, b) an equivalent way, or c) a different way. If c), then no problem. sbp: If a), on the other hand, I've been directly obsoleted, a bit like how daml:equivalentTo was obsoleted by owl:sameAs. When that happens, as it did happen with the owl:sameAs case, things break. This is irritating. sbp: If b), it's even more tricky, because it means that the mapping from what I've done to what OWL 1.1's done isn't a straightforward "use this property instead" mapping; instead it may require rules to express the differences. sbp: Having said that, it should be possible to do the following: for any tools that rely on my CIFP terms/rules, check my CIFP schema to see if an a) or b) situation has occured, and if so you can backwards munge the new OWL 1.1-using input into my old CIFP stuff and perform the actions as normal. sbp: This was one of the very early use cases for what the Semantic Web can do, somewhere in the Semantic Web roadmap. See also the Mandatory extensions and Evolution of a specification design issues. sbp: Perhaps it's time we actually, you know, did it! sbp: Hmm, Extending and Versioning Languages from the TAG seems right pertinent for this subject too.
sbp: The problem is that I might choose one way of doing it, and OWL 1.1 might end up with a) exactly the same way, b) an equivalent way, or c) a different way. If c), then no problem.
sbp: If a), on the other hand, I've been directly obsoleted, a bit like how daml:equivalentTo was obsoleted by owl:sameAs. When that happens, as it did happen with the owl:sameAs case, things break. This is irritating.
sbp: If b), it's even more tricky, because it means that the mapping from what I've done to what OWL 1.1's done isn't a straightforward "use this property instead" mapping; instead it may require rules to express the differences.
sbp: Having said that, it should be possible to do the following: for any tools that rely on my CIFP terms/rules, check my CIFP schema to see if an a) or b) situation has occured, and if so you can backwards munge the new OWL 1.1-using input into my old CIFP stuff and perform the actions as normal.
sbp: This was one of the very early use cases for what the Semantic Web can do, somewhere in the Semantic Web roadmap. See also the Mandatory extensions and Evolution of a specification design issues.
sbp: Perhaps it's time we actually, you know, did it!
sbp: Hmm, Extending and Versioning Languages from the TAG seems right pertinent for this subject too.