- From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:45:02 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "laurent.lefort@abs.gov.au" <laurent.lefort@abs.gov.au>
- CC: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "SDW WG Public List" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
not me. possibly laurent cc-d > On 10 Apr 2017, at 11:46 pm, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > > Happy to confirm that W3 Team members have write access to https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ which is where the vocab files are (I just grabbed the lot from our CVS repository). > > So, yes, it can be edited if that's what's needed. > > However, the namespace for old SSN is http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ssnx/ssn and so it would be perfectly possible to redirect *that* to somewhere new (assuming someone - Kerry? - still has sign in credentials). > > Phil > > >> On 10/04/2017 14:37, Kerry Taylor wrote: >> At the time, Phil A said we do have access to the old URI. And the old wiki pages too so that something useful can be written there. I suggest you re-confirm. >> >> From: Armin Haller >> Sent: Monday, 10 April 2017 11:11 PM >> To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Status of the old SSN and the alignment to the new SSN >> >> Option a) was our working assumption in the beginning since we thought we do not have access to the old URI. However, agree, c) is most useful. Are we positive that we now have full access to the old URI again? >> >> >> From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> >> Date: Monday, 10 April 2017 at 10:58 pm >> To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr<mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> >> Subject: RE: Status of the old SSN and the alignment to the new SSN >> Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> >> Resent-Date: Monday, 10 April 2017 at 10:59 pm >> >> 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<mailto: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 >> > > -- > > > Phil Archer > Data Strategist, W3C > http://www.w3.org/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2017 11:45:43 UTC