[foaf-dev] Re: updated FOAF spec
henry.story at bblfish.net
Mon May 28 20:57:35 BST 2007
Oops sorry. I just realised on reading this thread more closely that
these relations exist in owl:
owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty
btw, one thing that I sometimes find missing when reading a spec is
some guidance as to which other ontologies play nicely with a given
one. Some ontologies are so minimal it feels like there are a number
of missing properties until one realises that one is meant to use a
dc property for example.
On 25 May 2007, at 11:00, Henry Story wrote:
> On 25 May 2007, at 02:09, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Thanks. I think first on the list, would be to help sketch some
>> definitions for "stable", "unstable", "testing" for deployed RDF
>> vocabularies, ie. help write down an account of the kinds of
>> changes that might be considered acceptable in an otherwise stable
>> vocabulary (and its documentation).
> You need "deprecated" too. That is widely understood now from Java.
> Neither stable nor unstable nor testing let us know if we should
> stop using a term.
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
More information about the foaf-dev