- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:50:48 +0100
- To: janowicz@ucsb.edu, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Cox, Simon (CESRE, Kensington)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>
Hi Krzysztof, I understand your frustration and arguments, however, this issue was discussed at length at the recent F2F where the clear consensus of the full WG was that a common base name should be used. See https://www.w3.org/2017/03/21-sdw-minutes#x09 The WG couldn't decide on whether the base name should be SOSA, SSN or something else, asking the SSN Sub Group for its view before the WG as a whole comes to a resolution. It's on the agenda for tomorrow's plenary call. Phil On 04/04/2017 06:09, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote: > Dear all, > > I have to admit that I am a frustrated and worried about the entire > naming discussion. > > To give you a brief history, when I proposed the current modularization, > I suggested the name SSN-core [1]. This name was later changed because > of arguments that SSN-core introduced new classes (such as Actuator) and > thus cannot use the SSN name (at this time, we were told that nothing in > SSN can be changed). Therefore, we changed the name to SANDA and then > to SOSA-core. Some time later, we were asked to drop the 'core' part as > it was not clear what it was a core of. So we changed to SOSA and this > is the name we are using for the lightweight ontology for about one year > now. SSN remained SSN for the entire time. > > The name SOSA has been used in more than 600 emails, many, many wiki > entries, github issues, w3c actions and issues, many presentation, > figures, and so forth. For instance, trying to get implementation > evidence, I talked to many people introducing the ideas behind and need > for SOSA. > > I would suggest, as strongly as I possibly can, not to change the names > 2 weeks before our draft is due and a few months before the end of the > group's work. Let us use SSN as the name and prefix for SSN and SOSA as > the name and prefix for SOSA. Everything else will cause a lot of work > and confusion and will make it very difficult for others to track our > work and the decisions we took over the last 18 months. > > The name SOSA is important because it offers 'truth in labeling', > something that SSN lacks (not only for the new work but also the initial > ontology which does not really cover networks nor 'semantic' sensors). > SOSA stands for the main parts of the lightweight ontology, namely > Sensor, Observation, Sample, and Actuator. This is not only > accurate,easy to remember, and intuitive, it also makes clear that this > is a redefined version of the old SSO pattern within SSN, namely a > lightweight vocabulary 'for the masses' . The fact that (new) SSN > imports SOSA does not cause any trouble. SSN always had a core that did > not share the its name. The original core was called SSO ( > Stimulus-Sensor-Observation) and has received a lot of attention in its > own rights. There was never a problem or complaint about SSN being based > on SSO and SSO being able to stand on its own. It is entirely unclear to > me why this should suddenly be a problem for SOSA and new-SSN. A fresh > name for a new lightweight module would also lead to new attention and > excitement (also by communities that rejected using SSN). > > Please note that every name and label has its pros and cons and there > will always be some language, community, acronym, or internet meme that > one would hope to avoid. This is already the case for 'SSN'. Finally, > please also note that we have introduced very substantial changes to the > SSN. > > The SOSA/SSN subgroup is in its last weeks and has tons of work to do > and implementation evidence to collect. IMHO, the absolutely last thing > we need is having to change all ontologies, documentations, figures, and > all the outreach we have already done for a questionable name change. > > Let us please stay with the names we used for a year now: SOSA for the > lightweight vocabulary and SSN for the ontology that imports and greatly > extends this vocabulary. > > > Thanks, > best, > Krzysztof. > > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules > > On 04/03/2017 04:36 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote: >> >> Dear SDW, >> >> As you recall, we have decided that the ssn/sosa ontologies will have >> two separate namespaces, but not what those namespaces are. This will >> be determined in the PLENARY meeting this week. If you cannot attend >> the plenary, please make your opinion known by reply to this email >> before the meeting. >> >> This issue can be separated into three: >> >> 1. STEM name >> >> Choose between >> >> (a) Sensor, Observation, Sample, and Actuator >> ontology– sosa >> >> (b) Semantic Sensor Network ontology – ssn >> >> 2. SUFFIX name >> >> Choose between >> >> (a) “lite” >> >> (b) “simple” >> >> (c) “full” >> >> 3. CONNECTOR symbol >> >> Choose between >> >> (a) “-“ hyphen >> >> (b) “_” underscore >> >> (c) “” nothing – juxtaposition only >> >> For example, choosing every (a) option for 1, 2 and 3 would derive >> “sosa-lite” and “sosa” as the suffixes for the namespace uris and also >> the recommended namespace prefixes for the simpler and fuller >> ontologies respectively. Choosing 1b,2c,3c would derive “ssn“ and >> “ssnfull” for the simpler and fuller ontologies respectively. >> >> Please indicate your preference for each of the three questions >> independently --- as the result will combine the preferred option from >> each of the three questions. >> >> -Kerry >> > > -- Phil Archer Data Strategist, W3C http://www.w3.org/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 08:51:02 UTC