Re: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data

Hi Simon,

Thanks for bringing this up. I agree that SWEET is a very powerful and 
useful idea but personally I stopped using it (and I know of many others 
that did so as well) because of the issues you mentioned as well as many 
modeling decisions that seemed questionable. This is something that is 
nearly unavoidable when developing a large structure like SWEET but it 
makes me feel that in its current stage SWEET should not be part of any 
best practice. Last time I checked it was also very lightweight, i.e., 
mostly using only subsumption relations, which limits its 
applicability.  A reworked version of SWEET would, of course, be great.

Best,
Krzysztof


On 04/03/2016 10:28 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Hi Lewis –
>
> Since you have raised SWEET, it is perhaps worth noting a few ways in 
> which it does not meet the expectations of the linked data community:
>
> (i)Every concept (class or property) defined in SWEET is denoted with 
> a http URI, but **these do not resolve** using HTTP. The main way to 
> use SWEET is to download the files, which are available, but huge and 
> take a long time to download;
>
> (ii)The same concept has a **different URI in different versions** of 
> SWEET. In particular the URIs have the SWEET version number in them. 
> The URIs also reflect the factoring between modules, which changes 
> between versions. There is also no tracking back from later versions 
> to older versions, so there is no way to automatically detect semantic 
> equivalence between versions;
>
> (iii)There is almost **no documentation** – no rdfs:label, 
> dc:description, rdfs:comment etc and also no rdfs:seeAlso, 
> skos:closeMatch, rdfs:isDefinedBy etc. So all you have to go by is the 
> name and position in the subsumption hierarchy.
>
> This is a shame, because SWEET is a well thought-out, well-structured 
> resource, but falls short in these few ways. I have raised these 
> issues with Thomas Huang (JPL) who I think is the current maintainer, 
> but haven’t had any impact yet L
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*lewis john mcgibbney [mailto:lewismc@apache.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 March 2016 6:32 PM
> *To:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data
>
> Hi Folks,
> I would like to propose the addition of the spatially-relevant 
> portions of the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology 
> (SWEET) [0] ontology which was authored @JPL.
> SWEET was developed with the aim of better locating NASA Earth science 
> data with it containing mutual relationships of scientific concepts 
> and their ancillary space, time, and environmental descriptors. There 
> are a number of spatial components which I would be happy to expand 
> upon if required.
>
> Thank you for any feedback.
>
> Lewis
>
>
> [0] http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov
>


-- 
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