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.

This is pretty much my understanding too (without having been in Delft), 
so this is re-assuring.
Note, though, that in this email, you naturally? name those creatures 
"SOSA" and "SSN" ... not, in this order, 'sosa-lite' and 'sosa' OR 
'sosa' and 'sosa-full'.

   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
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 13:14:53 UTC