- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:15:49 -0800
- To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr, jano@geog.ucsb.edu
- Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <e7f7f606-3c0a-00cb-a7af-708881294fa0@ucsb.edu>
Btw, would you suggest having one stko:example triple per example or per class/property (in case we have multiple or more complex examples)? On 02/05/2017 05:57 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > +1 for using SKOS and not proliferating an alternative :-) > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 12:11 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > ØAnd 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 > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>] > *Sent:* Monday, 6 February, 2017 12:06 > *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au > <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; Maxime Lefrançois > <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>; > Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu > <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > *Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto: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 > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>; Krzysztof Janowicz > <jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>; Simon Cox > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> > *Cc:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; SDW WG Public List > <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> > *Date: *Sunday, 5 February 2017 at 10:29 pm > *To: *Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu > <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> > *Cc: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, SDW WG Public List > <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> > *Subject: *Re: tidying ssn -- are you ok with? > *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <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
Received on Monday, 6 February 2017 03:16:28 UTC