Re: Voting on a name for ssn this week in plenary

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

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 


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]
> 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
+44 (0)7887 767755

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 08:51:02 UTC