Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?

Hi Kerry,

> If it is to go  on the meeting agenda then some thought beforehand 
> would be helpful.

Agreed. Some thoughts are listed below to explain why this should be on 
next week's agenda.

> I can’t recall whether sosa currently imports skos – I think that has 
> changed a couple of times (but don’t quote me on that). 

Yes, I also think we changed back and forth and this is one of the 
reason to have a discussion next week.

> I am guessing that your objection relates to skos not being in owl DL. 
> But I am only guessing. I am also assuming that we would want to see 
> the same treatment in ssn and sosa. 

I am not super concerned about this, but I agree that it is a point 
worth considering. For me, the key issue is rather wether we are just 
using skos:example or whether we plan to use more of SKOS in the future. 
This is another point I would like to discuss during the meeting.

> Options I can think of:
>
> (a) use skos:example and declare it an owl  annotation property (and 
> this will work for any other skos property too). Also don’t import skos.
>
> (b) make up our own --e.g   ssn:example
>
> (c) find another one that people use for this purpose
>
> (d) give up – retract everything and just bury examples inside 
> rdfs:comment.

Frankly speaking Kerry, I think these are all good and usable 
approaches. All of them have advantages and disadvantages but non of 
them strikes me as a no-go in any sense. Intuitively, I would vote for b 
(sosa/ssn:example) if this would also imply that we declare it an 
annotation property. Which one is your favorite? A? For exactly these 
reasons I hope we can discuss this during our next telco. I also hope 
that this should be something we can all agree on within 20min.

There is one more interesting issue to consider to make sure we arrive 
at a consistent way of documenting both ontologies, namely on the 
semantics of 'example'. Consider the following example:

> *ssn:Platform*
>
> An Entity to which other Entities can be attached - particuarly 
> Sensors and other Platforms. For example, a post might act as the 
> Platform, a bouy might act as a Platform, or a fish might act as a 
> Platform for an attached sensor. 

I would assume "For example, a post might act as the Platform, a bouy 
might act as a Platform, or a fish might act as a Platform for an 
attached sensor." is part of the example and will be removed from the 
comment, right?

But what about "- particuarly Sensors and other Platforms". This could 
count as example as well.

If so, we are left with "An Entity to which other Entities can be attached."

Do you see my point?

Cheers,
Jano




On 02/04/2017 07:28 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> Jano,
>
> Could you explain the problem   as you see it beforehand please? If it 
> is to go  on the meeting agenda then some thought beforehand would be 
> helpful.
>
> I note that this has already been done in sosa --- and was Simon’s 
>  response to an earlier  ssn meeting discussion  about separating 
> examples  from descriptions (rdfs: comment) in a different property. – 
> for visibility, retrievability, and perhaps even an expectation that 
> tools might find it helpful to treat examples differently from 
> descriptions. I can’t recall whether sosa currently imports skos – I 
> think that has changed a couple of times (but don’t quote me on that).
>
> I am guessing that your objection relates to skos not being in owl DL. 
> But I am only guessing. I am also assuming that we would want to see 
> the same treatment in ssn and sosa.
>
> Options I can think of:
>
> (a) use skos:example and declare it an owl  annotation property (and 
> this will work for any other skos property too). Also don’t import skos.
>
> (b) make up our own --e.g   ssn:example
>
> (c) find another one that people use for this purpose
>
> (d) give up – retract everything and just bury examples inside 
> rdfs:comment.
>
> -Kerry
>
> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 4 February 2017 4:31 PM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; SDW WG Public List 
> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?
>
> Hi Kerry,
>
> I think it would be great if we could discuss this in the group 
> meeting next week. I would like to understand our motivation a bit 
> better as well as some decisions that we are taking e.g., using 
> skos:example without importing skos.
>
> Have a nice weekend
> Jano
>
>
> On 02/03/2017 09:15 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
>     I’d like to follow the approach Simon used in sosa (as we
>     discussed in a meeting last year, I think) to separate examples
>     from descriptive comments in the ontology using skos:example.
>
>     Are you ok with me doing the same in ssn? I don’t  plan to change
>     the content substantively (although I might reword an example a
>     little if it seems a bit too hard to follow e.g. too brief). And
>     I’m not going to add amore examples at this point --- just move
>     the ones already there.
>
>     I will not import skos.
>
>     Btw– I think this means specgen that we are currently using for
>     the spec doco will no longer be able to extract the example – nor
>     for sosa .
>
>     -Kerry
>
> -- 
> Krzysztof Janowicz
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
> Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
> Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

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

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net