RE: Status of the old SSN and the alignment to the new SSN

Maxime,
I think c is probably most useful, sicne the dul alignment was intrinsic and inseparable in the old ssn, but d is also useful and therefore ok.

I also totally support the metadata as you describe.

Kerry

From: Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr]
Sent: Monday, 10 April 2017 10:47 PM
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Status of the old SSN and the alignment to the new SSN

Dear all,

(SOSA is not in the scope of this discussion)

I would like to better understand your opinions on the transition from the old SSN to the new SSN:

The URL of the old SSN ontology will redirect to the location of an OWL ontology that :
 a. entails the old SSN ontology unchanged;
 b. entails the old SSN without the DUL alignment, but completely disconnected from the new SSN
 c. entails the old SSN with the DUL alignment, imports the new SSN, and contains the alignments between the old terms and the new terms;
 d. entails the old SSN without the DUL alignment, imports the new SSN, and contains the alignments between the old terms and the new terms;

In case of (b), then:
 1. where is the document that contains the alignment between the old terms and the new terms?
 2. without this alignment, is it really true that old SSN data becomes valid new SSN data?

In my option, either (c) or (d) should be true, and we should consider that SSN is an ontology series as per [1]: SSN old is the old version, the new SSN is the latest version, BUT there may be other versions in the future.  There are thus standard OWL metadata that should be considered: owl:versionInfo (ok), and owl:versionIRI.

Best,
Maxime

[1] - https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Ontology_IRI_and_Version_IRI