Re: ssn: action-155

Hi Kerry,

Sure. One of the reasons to include DUL in the original SSN was the need 
for a stronger semantic anchoring of the classes and relationships 
defined in SSN. One problem we faced was that terms such as Sensor, 
System, Observation, were under-specific to a degree where a major part 
of the intended interpretation of these classes was encoded in terms of 
their labels. DUL gave us additional axioms to further refine what was 
meant by 'Sensor', 'Observation' and so forth. Removing DUL, will leave 
us with the same problem as we had before, and, thus, I proposed to make 
use of the power of OWL2 to add a stronger axiomatic foundation to SSN 
(classes).

Best,
Krzysztof



On 05/09/2016 05:20 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> Krzysztof,
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/155
>
> Could you please address this remark you made in an ssn meeting some 
> time ago? I read it as a suggestion for a major ssn rewrite, but 
> perhaps it  is a suggestion for an extension instead?  Or something 
> else?  It is sitting on this page 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks  at present but maybe 
> it deserves attention as one of these proposals on the wiki here 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN?  If 
> nothing better can  you please explain it on the list so we can handle 
> it appropriately and write it off the “task list” if appropriate?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kerry
>


-- 
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