- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:48:25 -0800
- To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr" <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "jano@geog.ucsb.edu" <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
- Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <14f1b887-7635-ab2f-ab73-b8fdcd961ea0@ucsb.edu>
> I’d probably go for just one triple per term, because I can foresee > examples wanting to reference other partial examples for the same term. > > However, given that the sosa use case is considerably smaller than the > ssn use case for many terms, I would not want to prohibit a simple > sosa-inspired example as well as an ssn-inspired example and these > should be distinguishable. Sounds good to me (assuming by smaller you mean more generic or simpler). On 02/05/2017 07:38 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote: > > I’d probably go for just one triple per term, because I can foresee > examples wanting to reference other partial examples for the same term. > > However, given that the sosa use case is considerably smaller than the > ssn use case for many terms, I would not want to prohibit a simple > sosa-inspired example as well as an ssn-inspired example and these > should be distinguishable. So.., following my proposed integration > architecture I wold ideally have one in the core module and another > one in the full module. They would both be true, but the expanded one > would reference terms or use cases that are not covered in the simple one. > > But of course this does depend on the unresolved integration strategy. > All I was asking for here was the approval for a simple extraction > of existing examples from ssn comments and moving them into a separate > property. In which case there will always be only one. > > Didn’t I ask this question too some time recently? Maybe it was in > that meeting that discussed this. Let’s not over-think this simple idea! > > -Kerry > > *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu] > *Sent:* Monday, 6 February 2017 2:16 PM > *To:* Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Kerry > Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Armin Haller > <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr; jano@geog.ucsb.edu > *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with? > > Btw, would you suggest having one stko:example triple per example or > per class/property (in case we have multiple or more complex examples)? > > On 02/05/2017 05:57 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > +1 for using SKOS and not proliferating an alternative :-) > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 12:11 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > ØAnd just to confirm (from the spec) > > Ø“Note that *no domain is stated* for the SKOS documentation > properties. Thus, the effective domain for these properties is > the class of all resources (rdfs:Resource). Therefore, using > the SKOS documentation properties to provide information on > *any type of resource* is consistent with the SKOS data model.” > > Yep – I had checked this when I first proposed it and it > seemed to leave the coast pretty clear. > > *From:*Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>] > *Sent:* Monday, 6 February, 2017 12:06 > *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au > <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; Maxime Lefrançois > <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>; Krzysztof Janowicz > <jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>; Cox, Simon > (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > *Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> > *Subject:* RE: tidying ssn -- are you ok with? > > All good . I prefer option(a) as long as we don’t import skos > and instead option(b) if we feel forced to import skos (which > therefore means we don’t import skos). Please don’t kill our > simple core or even our complex full ssn by an extra import > that we can easily do without! > > I just checked: skos declares skos:example as an annotation > property so if we do so in our ontologies it will not prevent > using them together with skos in all its glory if someone > wants to. And the same for those other skos documentation > properties if we want to use them. > > And just to confirm (from the spec) > > “Note that *no domain is stated* for the SKOS documentation > properties. Thus, the effective domain for these properties is > the class of all resources (rdfs:Resource). Therefore, using > the SKOS documentation properties to provide information on > *any type of resource* is consistent with the SKOS data model.” > > -Kerry > > *From:*Armin Haller > *Sent:* Monday, 6 February 2017 11:34 AM > *To:* Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>; Krzysztof Janowicz > <jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>; Simon Cox > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> > *Cc:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; SDW WG Public List > <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> > *Subject:* 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 > <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 > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> > *Date: *Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 10:29 pm > *To: *Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu > <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> > *Cc: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, SDW WG Public List > <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> > *Subject: *Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with? > *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto: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/ > <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/> > > Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net > > -- > 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/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/> > Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Monday, 6 February 2017 19:49:01 UTC