Re: State of SSN: arguments in favour of a single name and namespace, proposal, the SEAS example, proposal of action

Hi Jano,

> -1 for SOSA and SSN having the same namespace
>

Sorry, see my answer to Kerry, this is an unfortunate typo:

-1 for SOSA and SSN having separate namespaces
+1 for SOSA and SSN having the same namespace.


> >  1. Communication-wise, and as a WG member, I would argue that a
> > single namespace and a single name "SSN" demonstrates that the group
> > is unified, whereas 2+ namespaces and 2+ names (SSN and SOSA)
> > demonstrates the group is split in two. This is my impression and
> > could the the impression of other people exterior to the group.
>
> I think this is really a misunderstanding of namespaces. The SDW will
> also use different namespaces and nobody would argue that we are not
> unified simply because TIME and SSN do not share a common namespace.
>

1.a TIME and SSN talk about different domains. They where introduced in
different documents, by different people. That's a historic difference.

1.b SSN and SOSA talk about the same domain. I strongly believe that using
two different namespaces brings more confusion, and less usability,
contrary to what has been said before. Let me just point to a recent email
on this list [1]:
 - Phil: What's the difference between sosa:hosts and sosa:attachedSystem ?
Do we need both?
 - Jano: SOSA should not have an attachedSystem relation. Do you mean SSN?

If choosing what prefix should be used for ***:attachedSystem is even
unclear to WG members that are highly involved such as Phil, how do you
expect the lambda user not to be confused ?!?


> >  2. Name-wise, as a user of the SSN ontology, I actually expect that
> > the outcome of this group is a simplified SSN. The name "SSN" is known
> > to me. So when I see there is now SOSA *and* SSN, I think the outcome
> > of the group is twice as complex that it was before. This is
> discouraging.
>
> I absolutely disagree with this statement and I cannot follow your
> argumentation. The SOSA is something new, this has nothing to do with
> SSN being known. We are not taking SSN away in any. That said, the new
> SSN is going to be pretty different from the old SSN so maybe it is good
> to make this very clear in all possible ways we can.
>

2.a Well I'm just telling you how I actually felt. You cannot disagree with
the fact that I felt this way.
2.b On the other hand, I know you and Armin were not very happy with the
name SOSA itself. Is SOSA some kind of brand you want to keep ? Wouldn't it
be acceptable for you to rename it "SSN Vocabulary", or "SSN Light Profile"
?
2.c So to put it simply, instead of simplifying something that exists and
is too complicated, we rather add something new. Is that it ?


3. You did not comment on argument 3 does this mean you accept it ?


4. You did not comment on argument 4 does this mean you accept it ?



> >  5. On a very personnal level, I spent much effort making so that the
> > SEAS ontologies use the SSN terms properly, and are compatible with
> > the SSN ontology. I have been quite discouraged when I saw that new
> > name "SOSA", and all the incompatibilities that seemed to arise with
> > SSN. I was afraid it would ruin my efforts in being compatible with
> > the SSN ontology. The SEAS ontologies are an example of usage of the
> > SSN ontology, and I really hope they will remain compatible with the
> > new SSN.
>
> Maxime. This is where the trouble starts. SOSA and SSN are *not*
> incompatible. Kerry will of course state this over and over again but
> this does not make it true. That said, new-SSN is not the same as

old-SSN so you may have to revisit your ontology if you want to remain
> compatible with the new SSN which has a new URL as well so your old work
> using the old SSN is *not* damaged in any way.
>

5.a Here again, I'm just telling you how I feel. My fears and hope. That's
not a scientific argument, but other potential users may feel the same.
5.b It depends on how you define "incompatible". SOSA adopts new names for
the same concepts that were there before, and sometimes new definitions.
You could say it's just *new* and unrelated to SSN (and compatible with it
therefore). But from my point of view, what I see is there may be issues.
5.c. I really thought what we commonly mean by backward compatibility is
that I wouldn't even need to change the prefix declaration ? I thought the
old SSN namespace will redirect to the IRI of the ontology document that is
backward compatible with the old SSN ?
5.d Actually, I personally don't really care about point 5.c, the SEAS
ontologies already import the new https://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/ namespace. It
could be problematic for some hypothetical legacy system that uses the old
namespace and ontology axioms though.

-----

I won't go any further in the exponential growth of arguments.

Best,
Maxime

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0018.html