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

Re: request for ssn agenda item please

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:27:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LzH1Zxh9AkMtvF-LHdBA6aaUEakXFBi_=uC-fZKdRibxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Hi - I'm not sure I've heard anyone either objecting to SSN using SOSA, or
calling this an "alignment".

I do agree with the proposition that an instance, including both SOSA and
SSN terms (and any other terms) should
1) conform to SOSA semantics with or without the axioms containing SSN terms
2) conform to SSN semantics if SSN terms are used

so its a design requirement for SSN that it does not violate SOSA, (and
therefore a design requirement for SOSA+SSN that this is feasible for SSN)

is the issue that we are conflating concerns with the label "subclass" -
i.e. using it as a surrogate for renaming sosa concepts in the SSN
namespace and expecting instances of SSN to use the SSN term (which is a
new namespace and not backwards compatible - as previously clarified).
Again - i dont think I hear anyone arging for this at this stage, and there
may not be a problem?



On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 09:57 Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:

> Frankly speaking, we generated so many emails and so many proposals that
> it is difficult to keep track of. We have multiple proposals, e.g., the one
> from Phil, on the table and instead of discussing them, we keep adding new
> proposals :-). Many of them are indeed very similar but a some are pretty
> different. Armin's request was to focus on the concrete platform issue
> first and this makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> On 02/07/2017 02:50 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> 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…
>
> Ø  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 Tuesday, 7 February 2017 23:28:45 UTC

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