Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?

+1 for using SKOS and not proliferating an alternative :-)


On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 12:11 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

Ø  And just to confirm (from the spec)

Ø  “Note that *no domain is stated* for the SKOS documentation properties.
Thus, the effective domain for these properties is the class of all
resources (rdfs:Resource). Therefore, using the SKOS documentation
properties to provide information on *any type of resource* is consistent
with the SKOS data model.”



Yep – I had checked this when I first proposed it and it seemed to leave
the coast pretty clear.



*From:* Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
*Sent:* Monday, 6 February, 2017 12:06
*To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; Maxime Lefrançois <
maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>; Cox,
Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
*Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
*Subject:* RE: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?



All good .  I prefer option(a) as long as we don’t import skos and instead
option(b) if we feel forced to import skos (which therefore means we don’t
import skos). Please don’t kill our simple core or even our complex full
ssn by an extra import that we  can easily do without!



I just checked: skos declares skos:example as an annotation property so if
we do so in our ontologies it will not prevent using them together with
skos in all its glory if someone wants to. And the same for those other
skos documentation properties if we want to use them.



And just to confirm (from the spec)

“Note that *no domain is stated* for the SKOS documentation properties.
Thus, the effective domain for these properties is the class of all
resources (rdfs:Resource). Therefore, using the SKOS documentation
properties to provide information on *any type of resource* is consistent
with the SKOS data model.”



-Kerry



*From:* Armin Haller
*Sent:* Monday, 6 February 2017 11:34 AM
*To:* Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; Krzysztof Janowicz <
jano@geog.ucsb.edu>; Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
*Cc:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; SDW WG Public List <
public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
*Subject:* Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?



This one seems to be an easy one to decide upon. We found the splitting of
examples and the definition as useful in a previous meeting, see
https://www.w3.org/2016/12/06-sdwssn-minutes



I will put the following two options how to implement that for vote in this
week’s meeting:



(a)    use skos:example in SOSA/SSN and declare it an owl annotation
property

(b)   define our own annotation property -- e.g. sosa/ssn:example



If we decide for (a) we can also decide on importing SKOS or not in a
second vote. Please, in this context also look at the generic comments that
I have proposed (as of a discussion I had with Kerry) as a compromise
between the current SOSA/SSN rdfs:comments:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table It would be useful to
change/edit those to a state where we agree on the general meaning of the
class. In the Wiki, please.





*From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
*Date: *Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 10:29 pm
*To: *Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>
*Cc: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <
public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
*Subject: *Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with?
*Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
*Resent-Date: *Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 10:30 pm



Dear all,



+1 for Kerry's (a) :

 - (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.

My arguments are:



 - SKOS is just used for documentation purposes here. So declaring
skos:example, skos:definition, skos:note as annotation properties suffice
in our case;

 - we don't need of all SKOS axioms. Importing all of them will make
SOSA/SSN more complex to browse in Protégé for example;

 - the users of SOSA/SSN will import SOSA/SSN, but they do absolutely not
need to import SKOS axioms.



Kind regards,

Maxime



Le dim. 5 févr. 2017 à 12:08, Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu> a
écrit :

I am certainly fine with SKOS if this is what most of us prefer. Armin, can
you put this onto our agenda for the next call?



On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:25 AM, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

Btw I never intended to claim that skos was ideal here, but it was
convenient to separate out the different annotations,. A simple SPARQL
update could then finalise it to the predicate/namespace of choice.
------------------------------

*From:* Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
*Sent:* Saturday, 4 February 2017 5:31:05 AM
*To:* Kerry Taylor; SDW WG Public List
*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

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/

Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net