Re: ssn: action-155

> On the other hand, I am aware  that some of the more OWL-DLish 
> expressions in SSN are the least understood,

I absolutely agree and this is why I proposed a horizontal and vertical 
modularization with a tiny core ontology (pattern) in a schema.org-style 
that only makes use of RDFS. Horizontal modules would then add more 
classes and relations (e.g., for deployment, sampling,...) and vertical 
modules would add more expressivity and further ontological commitments.

Best,
Jano


On 05/09/2016 04:31 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> Ok! I get it. Thank you.  On the other hand, I am aware  that some of 
> the more OWL-DLish expressions in SSN are the least understood, and 
> there is some pressure to “simplify”  the language of SSN. I for one, 
> would not support “dumbing down” from where it is in general, but I’m 
> not sure about “smartening up” (my words) either.
>
> Can you put this proposal on the  wiki page here 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN as 
> well as you can, please?
>
> No great rush – you could start with just  this and expand it as we go 
> along --- we really need to get that FPWD out before considering these 
> proposals too deeply. It is exactly because we have such a range of 
> proposals like this that I think it is important to get the FPWD asap.
>
> -Kerry
>
> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:29 AM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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 <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