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

On 04/05/2017 06:14 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
>> 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'.

Same here. Let us follow Armin's suggestion and leave everything as is. 
SOSA remains SOSA, SSN remains SSN, we have two ontologies, two 
namespaces, and two URIs. This is a good solution and the status quo for 
some time now. We have other pressing issues to address.


>   Raphaël

Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Semantic Web Journal:

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 19:12:21 UTC