desise format for vocabularies

[Mark Taylor]

It sounds reasonable, but requiring that the desise "deprecated"
member has the value 'true' in desise presents a backward compatibility
issue, so it would be disruptive.  Recommending the value 'true',
for the purposes of human readability, might make sense.

Mandating use of a boolean literal in future similar standards text
might arguably also be a good idea, though it could also be misleading,
for instance

   "deprecated": true

and

   "deprecated": "true"

both syntactically valid JSON, would have different meanings.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024, Baptiste Cecconi wrote:

> Hi guys, 
> 
> just to let you know that the rest of the semantic world is doing this "deprecation" in a similar way, using OWL (Web Ontology Language).
> 
> Actually, it can be done in two different ways, which are logically equivalent:
> - the term has type "owl:DeprecatedClass"
> - the term has a "owl:deprecated" property, which is must be set to "true" (with a xsd:boolean type)
> 
> I would tend to try and adopt the generic semantics way of doing things. 
> 
> Setting the "deprecated" property to "true" (boolean true) makes things clear and obvious. No need to read the documentation to understand what it means.
> 
> Cheers
> Baptiste 
> 
> > Le 4 oct. 2024 à 09:42, Mark Taylor via semantics <semantics at ivoa.net> a écrit :
> > 
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, Markus Demleitner via semantics wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Mark,
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 09:40:23AM +0100, Mark Taylor wrote:
> >>>> As the deprecated key is string typed then is
> >>>> 
> >>>>  “deprecated” : null
> >>>> 
> >>>> also a true value?
> >>> 
> >>> I'd say yes; though the VocInVO text "present and mapped to a reserved value"
> >>> seems a bit obscure here.
> >> 
> >> Now that you expose it like that, it *does* seem somewhat obscure.
> >> What I meant to say was "do not look at the value" (and hence, yes,
> >> null as a value would count; I'd even consider this a good choice.
> >> Let me sidestep the question of "undefined", as I prefer to hope that
> >> has not made it into JSON).
> >> 
> >> Perhaps "present and mapped to an arbitrary value"?
> > 
> > Yes that would be better.  I wouldn't say that an erratum is required
> > here, but if there's a later version is should be reworded.
> > 
> > --
> > Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol University, UK
> > m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk          https://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/mbt/
> 
> 

--
Mark Taylor  Astronomical Programmer  Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk          https://www.star.bristol.ac.uk/mbt/