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

I am still concerned about the lack of clarity of the relationship of SSN
to SOSA - is it really nothinh more than SOSA + OWL or does it introduce
new, specialised terms?

It is, evidently, counterproductive to keep revisiting this without first
getting a clear statement mutually agreed about whether SSN (as currently
named) is a fish or a fowl.

If, as currently specified, SSN introduces new terms and narrower semantics
(and I have yet to see any axiomitisation suggestions that are not based on
definitions in SSN namespace), then I strongly recommend it has a distinct
namespace.  Hard to argue against sosa + ssn. So do we need sosa-full? If
we do, then fine, but lets not confuse it with SSN scope.

If (and its by no means certain it is necessary) SOSA owl axioms need to be
packaged separately, then we have an implementation of Option 5 similar to
option 8 (sosa, sosa-full and ssn)  which meets all the criteria people
have raised, (but without the ability to discover sosa-full without prior
knowledge - which is no more or less bad than any other approach and not
affected by naming at all.)

I am very strongly against core/full pattern if the two ontologies have
different scopes.  Full only makes sense if thats all it is.  Core is
better, in that it at least implies that it may be a subset.

I think the work that falls out perhaps is to either:
 1) create a stub for sosa-full and place it as future work to populate it
with additional constraints (this wont break any usage consistent with the
sosa definitions!)
 2) extract and generalise those axioms in SSN that are felt to apply to
the SOSA definitions, and not narrower sensor semantics.  If you call this
sosa-full, and park the sensor specific parts in another ontology called
SSN, then the same pattern emerges.

If we cant explain this to ourselves, what hope is there for a wider
audience to make sense of it?

rob

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 at 08:08 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> Raphael,
> Please make a proposal!
> -Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017 7:35 AM
> To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; Maxime Lefrançois <
> maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>;
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; Ed Parsons <
> eparsons@google.com>
> Subject: Re: Voting on a name for ssn this week in plenary
>
> > I think that's a little unfair, Raphaël. The decision to have a common
> > base name was discussed at length at the F2F, during the session set
> > aside for SSN. What that common base name is, and what the prefixes
> > might be, are up for discussion - which is what this thread is about.
> > Kerry is trying to offer a straightforward choice but at this stage,
> > the door is open to alternative suffixes.
>
> I originally understood that only the SSN task members did vote during the
> F2F meeting, my mistake if this was not the case.
>
> Room is open for alternative suffixes or separators, but the window is
> closed regarding the fact that the core module and the extended must be
> sub-string, correct?
>
>    Raphaël
>
> --
> Raphaël Troncy
> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
> Data Science Department
> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 <+33%204%2093%2000%2082%2042>
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <+33%204%2090%2000%2082%2000>
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
>