Re: [ssn] equivalence axioms to relate the old ssn to the new ssn.

+1

Is there a specific recommendation or set of tools out there that drives
people to conflate the separate concepts of namespace, ontology IRI and
file location? I can see why they are often the same, in the interests of
having both the namespace and ontology IRI resolve to something - but with
a more conscientious approach to content-negotiation this doesnt seem to be
generally applicable. Do we need to spell the differences out whenever we
do treat these independently?

Rob

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 at 11:04 Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comment and the clarification by Kerry.
>
>
>
> The SSN sub-group had some robust discussions around the namespacing and
> modularisation of the SSN. The idea of the modularisation is to offer users
> different levels of ontological commitment, depending on their use case.
> From evidence gathered, few if anyone is using the strongest axiomatization
> in the current SSN, that is the DULCE layering in SSN. Therefore, the new
> SSN does not rely on this layering underneath DULCE, but there is a
> separate alignment file that ensures that users who rely on and prefer the
> strong axiomatization offered by DULCE are still able to use it. However,
> we decided to keep the alignment files separate in their *own* namespace,
> so that you do not get unintended inferences in your SSN namespace if the
> alignment ontology somehow ends up in your triplestore/reasoner. Also, on a
> Web scale, this will maintain a clear separation between the different
> layers of the SSN, including the new lightweight core (currently called
> SOSA), which is also in its own namespace with a different, more
> lightweight ontological commitment.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Armin
>
>
>
> *From: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Date: *Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:41 am
> *To: *Ghislain Atemezing-Pro <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>
> *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [ssn] equivalence axioms to relate the old ssn to the new
> ssn.
> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Friday, 9 December 2016 at 10:42 am
>
>
>
> Hi Ghislain,
>
> Thks for your comment. I am very happy to see that someone is looking!
>
>
>
> The idea to keep them in an ontology different to the main ssn ontology so
> that you don’t have to get them if you don’t want them (part of the
> modularity goal).  It seems that if you load an ontology into  lots of
> triple stores they load all the other ontologies referenced by term
> namespaces --- in this case that would mean loading the old (purl) ssn and
> the old dolce too (which is not even retrievable from that namespace any
> more, so really causes problems for tools). That’s pretty ugly behaviour.
>
>
>
> So it’s a convenience thing. I don’t think the “namespace” is important
> --- it actually has no terms in the namespace (so I am not even sure that
> “namespace” is the right word here) but indeed the ontology file and the
> ontology URI would be different.
>
>
>
> As a secondary reason --- making the equivalences a little less “in your
> face” is hopefully a way of encouraging the move to the new ssn.
>
>
>
> Personally, I don’t feel much commitment to this way of doing it --- and
> there may well be a better way that I can’t think of. Or just putting it in
> the main ssn file could be the better one if this way creates problems for
> some people or tools.
>
>
>
>
>
> And yes: http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/  is considerably out of date.  Please
> see this instead
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn.owl . The
> version on the namespace location will not be updated until after the f2f
> vote (but before the formal publication of the WD).
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you pls clarify “those nice metadata that you have in the
> equivalences file. ( + dct:issued property as well)” if the github
> version also suffers in that way?   And I will do what I can to fix it. I
> don’t recall dct:issues having been used at all before.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ghislain Atemezing-Pro [mailto:ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 December 2016 1:36 AM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ssn] equivalence axioms to relate the old ssn to the new
> ssn.
>
>
>
> Hi Kerry,
>
> Nice work! Those mappings are really necessary for end users.
>
> However, I don't understand why we need a new namespace/ontology for this
> type of mappings.
>
> Wouldn't be better to have those mappings in the same ontology file, in
> the new ssn namespace?
>
> Btw, I was looking at http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/ and there are still
> missing those nice metadata that you have in the equivalences file. ( +
> dct:issued property as well)
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ghislain
>
>
>
> Le mar. 6 déc. 2016 à 14:52, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> a
> écrit :
>
> SSN-ers,
>
> I have built a small ontology to relate the classes and properties of ssn
> in its new namespace  (http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/) to the classes and
> properties of the old  (SSN-XG) ssn in its old namespace .  The intention
> of this is that it becomes a part of the normative ssn but is served in a
> different ontology file so that it does not need to be loaded up in order
> to use the new ssn. However, it (hopefully) will enable us to use
> implementations of the old ssn as proof of implementations of the new ssn
> (where concepts by all of intension ,  rdfs: comment description,  and the
> suffix part of their names have not changed).
>
>
>
> Please see it here
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/ssn_equivalences.owl
>  I would like to include this in the FPWD so that our plan for
> implementation evidence can be tested before it is too late. I will also
> get it into the rec document, I hope.
>
>
>
> Any comments gratefully received.
>
> -Kerry
>
>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
>
> R&D Engineer
>
> @ Mondeca, Paris, France
>
> Labs: http://labs.mondeca.com
>
> Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034 <+33%201%2041%2011%2030%2034>
>
> Web: www.mondeca.com
>
> Twitter: @gatemezing
>
> About Me: http://atemezing.org
>