Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?

This one seems to be an easy one to decide upon. We found the splitting of examples and the definition as useful in a previous meeting, see https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes


I will put the following two options how to implement that for vote in this week’s meeting:


(a)     use skos:example in SOSA/SSN and declare it an owl annotation property

(b)     define our own annotation property -- e.g. sosa/ssn:example

If we decide for (a) we can also decide on importing SKOS or not in a second vote. Please, in this context also look at the generic comments that I have proposed (as of a discussion I had with Kerry) as a compromise between the current SOSA/SSN rdfs:comments: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table It would be useful to change/edit those to a state where we agree on the general meaning of the class. In the Wiki, please.


From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Date: Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 10:29 pm
To: Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?
Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 10:30 pm

Dear all,

+1 for Kerry's (a) :
 - (a) use skos:example and declare it an owl  annotation property (and this will work for any other skos property too). Also don’t import skos.

My arguments are:

 - SKOS is just used for documentation purposes here. So declaring skos:example, skos:definition, skos:note as annotation properties suffice in our case;
 - we don't need of all SKOS axioms. Importing all of them will make SOSA/SSN more complex to browse in Protégé for example;
 - the users of SOSA/SSN will import SOSA/SSN, but they do absolutely not need to import SKOS axioms.

Kind regards,
Maxime

Le dim. 5 févr. 2017 à 12:08, Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>> a écrit :
I am certainly fine with SKOS if this is what most of us prefer. Armin, can you put this onto our agenda for the next call?

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:25 AM, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> wrote:
Btw I never intended to claim that skos was ideal here, but it was convenient to separate out the different annotations,. A simple SPARQL update could then finalise it to the predicate/namespace of choice.
________________________________
From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2017 5:31:05 AM
To: Kerry Taylor; SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?

Hi Kerry,

I think it would be great if we could discuss this in the group meeting next week. I would like to understand our motivation a bit better as well as some decisions that we are taking e.g., using skos:example without importing skos.

Have a nice weekend
Jano


On 02/03/2017 09:15 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
I’d like to follow the approach Simon used in sosa (as we discussed in a meeting last year, I think) to separate examples from descriptive comments in the ontology using skos:example.

Are you ok with me doing the same in ssn? I don’t  plan to change the content substantively (although I might reword an example a little if it seems a bit too hard to follow e.g. too brief). And I’m not going to add amore examples at this point --- just move the ones already there.

I will not import skos.

Btw– I think this means specgen that we are currently using for the spec doco will no longer be able to extract the example – nor for sosa .
-Kerry





--

Krzysztof Janowicz



Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara

4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060



Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/


Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net