Re: ssn: issue-72 inverse properties in sosa-core

I share Simon's assessment. Even though we decided to postpone, the 
initial vote was 6 to 1 in favor of inverse properties and this is 
something that we should at least keep in our minds. I am not exactly 
sure why we want to move so fast on some issues (like the vote on 
rdfs:class) but are so slow about deciding about other issues that seem 
less controversial.

On 11/08/2016 09:33 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Hi Kerry –
>
> Ønot to a point of reaching  a  consensus on which  was preferred.
>
> Not sure I understand that part of the assessment. There were multiple 
> +1 for (A), and no votes against. There was only one +1 for option 
> (B). (Danh voted 0 on both.) It looked like a reasonably strong 
> consensus, though it was after the hour was up.
>
> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/08-sdwssn-minutes
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 9 November 2016 10:41 AM
> *To:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Armin Haller 
> <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
> *Subject:* ssn: issue-72 inverse properties in sosa-core
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/72
>
> The issue of inverse property declarations in sosa-core was again 
> vehemently discussed in the meeting today. We got to a point where 2 
> alternative approaches  were universally considered acceptable if 
> necessary, but not to a point of reaching  a  consensus on which  was 
> preferred.
>
> At the next ssn meeting this will be put to the vote.  The decision to 
> be made is between  either A or B below.
>
> The SOSA-core should often declare properties that are named, and 
> intended to be used as inverses of other declared properties.
>
> In every case where both a property and its intended  inverse is 
> declared in sosa-core:
>
> (A) The pair is to be related by an owl:InverseOf declaration; or
>
> (B)The pair are not to be axiomatically  related but documentation is 
> to be used to make the  inverse intention clear
>
> Due to requests at the meeting the question of whether Classes on 
> sosa-core  were to be declared as owl:Class or rdfs:Class was left 
> open as it was suggested that that question was too overloaded with 
> misunderstanding of the consequences, and focusing on  a particular 
> question like inverseOf might set the scene. I guess the idea behind 
> this is that if we think owl:InverseOf is ok to use in sosa-core --- a 
> particular place where OWL reasoning can be used with a useful effect 
> but without insisting that it **must** be used--  then we should also 
> be comfortable with  using owl:Class in sosa-core.
>
> --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