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

It is always interested, though not surprising, when moments of clarity quickly get re-submerged in ambiguity. My impression from Delft was that the group made a fairly clear choice for two ontologies, two URI’s, two namespaces. The first, designated by SOSA, containing a small set of concepts and properties, with annotated semantics. The second, designated by SSN, importing the SOSA ontology and primarily adding formal (OWL + RDFS) semantics that are as equivalent as possible to the annotations in SOSA. The group allowed that there might also be additional concepts and properties, together with their formal axioms, defined in SSN that are not part of SOSA. The group aimed for SOSA to be a vocabulary as light and un-encumbered by semantic technology and history as possible and usable without any knowledge of the existence of SSN, and SSN to be a reasonably complete OWL ontology built on top of the SOSA vocabulary. 

Does any of this need to be reconsidered?

—Josh

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 3:47 AM, Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Rob makes an excellent point, I'm concerned that we are once again far from concensus on this.  Should we cancel the vote ?
> 
> Ed
> 
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017, 23:37 Rob Atkinson, <rob@metalinkage.com.au <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> wrote:
> Raphael,
> Please make a proposal!
> -Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2017 7:35 AM
> To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org <mailto:phila@w3.org>>; Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com <mailto: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 <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> & raphael.troncy@gmail.com <mailto:raphael.troncy@gmail.com>
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 <tel:+33%204%2093%2000%2082%2042>
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <tel:+33%204%2090%2000%2082%2000>
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/ <http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/>
> -- 
> 
> Ed Parsons FRGS
> Geospatial Technologist, Google
> 
> +44 7825 382263 @edparsons
> www.edparsons.com <http://www.edparsons.com/> 
>