[foaf-dev] Re: updated FOAF spec

[Henry Story]

Oops sorry. I just realised on reading this thread more closely that  
these relations exist in owl:

owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty

Sorry.

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.

Henry


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.
>
> Henry
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-dev mailing list
> foaf-dev at lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-dev