W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

request for ssn agenda item please

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:50:41 +0000
To: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <SYXPR01MB153627CA729D794B0587619CA4430@SYXPR01MB1536.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Could I please have a chance to speak on my proposal at a meeting? I was surprised today by some statements made that seemed to totally misunderstand it.
I guess this is a consequence of it being discussed in a meeting when I could not hear nor see any of that discussion last week ... sorry.

In this context, maybe this extract from an earlier email (from me replying to Simon) helps (and yes, I think  this shows that Simon in particular did  see a crucial point  in the proposal but did not see why).

And to reiterate --- the original proposal from Jano on vertical and horizontal integration behaved exactly this way. It is not new! Just worked through for a real case and refined a little with rdfs:comments also being aligned.
-Kerry

Change of topic...

?  On subclassing: why is it that you dislike having these in alignments? Is there a principled reason for this application, or does subclassing introduce some general difficulty that I'm not familiar with?
Lots of reasons. But the most important one is the bi-directional interoperability. So you can take a ssn full instance , let a reasoner run for all the instances, throw away any non-sosa terms and voila you have a proper sosa instance. E.g. if you have a sosa:observation  subclass of ssn:observation you cannot do this. OTOH you can take a sosa instance,  and it is a fully formed ssn instance just start decorating it as it is with  any extra ssn properties you want.  E.g. if you have a ssn:observation  subclass of sosa:observation you cannot do this.
Ok equivalentclass can do that right -but that 's inelegant for other reasons.
And its not an "alignment" --- what an ugly design  to make an ontology "align" with its  simple core! Truly bizarre.
And what do we think we are doing to our poor users forcing them to use the same term with two different prefixes in the same ontology? Whoever would force  that on  anyone???? How are they supposed to know what they are to do - even if they actually notice there is a difference before they break everything.
I should take on the task of formalising this  property  - I am quite sure I did not invent it --- it  is really important to me  or else how can sosa make any sense as a core of ssn?- and Jano's original modularisation proposal seems to have this property anyway. Where did it all go wrong?
So ... will you help? Is there anyone out there that can understand what I am saying yet?  Maxime seems to get it!!  I absolutely cannot do this alone.

Kerry
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 22:51:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:29 UTC