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

Re: Different or same Namespace for SOSA/SSN

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:48:59 -0800
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <061bc060-6f8a-3160-615b-e85084a51c6d@ucsb.edu>
Thanks Simon, I fully support and agree with everything what you said.

Let me just add two more aspects.

One is the branding, i.e., a clear signal that SOSA is usable on its own.

Secondly, and more importantly, what about academic papers, 
documentations, slides, source code fragments, and so forth. Clearly, if 
I have a code snippet, slides, or a text fragment in a paper (such as 
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit 
\texttt{sosa:sensor} Duis sed sollicitudin metus, eu vulputate magna.") 
then two namespaces are easier to use while a one namespace solution 
suddenly becomes a problem if I would like to immediately know which of 
the two ontologies are being used.

Best,
Jano



On 02/08/2017 04:52 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> On ISSUE-80 and 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=NamespaceIssue
>
> I can see that the http knitting described by Maxime is a very clever 
> technical solution which might allow use of a single namespace.
>
> But I am very concerned that it deviates significantly from 
> conventional expectations.
>
> The goals of the SDW working group are primarily to make spatial data 
> more visible on the web.
>
> In my opinion we should be very cautious about using techniques which, 
> while technically and theoretically defensible, would surprise 
> time-strapped/lazy web developers and users, and lead them to just go 
> somewhere else.
>
> SSN has had enormous impact in the research community, is cited in a 
> lot of journal papers, but very little outside that milieu.
>
> SOSA is carefully pitched at a broader community, which we generally 
> characterize as the ‘schema.org’ community.
>
> It includes a limited subset of the classes and properties that are 
> required for the whole story, but is still consistent with (a slightly 
> revised version of) SSN, with the expectation that it can therefore 
> serve as its core.
>
> We anticipate use by people who don’t know or care about semantics and 
> entailments and property-chain axioms and the like, but would be happy 
> to tag data using URIs from a coherent set with a coherent identity.
>
> The theory says that namespace != file != ontology != graph
>
> But the practice and common usage and expectations don’t follow the 
> theory, and frankly it is folly to imagine the world is going to 
> change to suit our refined needs.
>
> We know for starters that a separate URI is needed for each graph, and 
> in practice these are expected to also correspond with an ontology URI 
> and then for practical reasons to the namespace for individual items 
> originally defined within the ontology.
>
> I really don’t think a single namespace URI for two different products 
> passes the Pareto principle, even if one builds on the other.
>
> And certainly not the laugh-test.
>
> What exactly is the objection to two namespace URIs? We wouldn’t be 
> the first to go this direction for a core and extensions: Dublin Core, 
> SKOS both have them, and it is a standard tool for both re-use and 
> modularization. Is it essentially around branding?
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 9 February, 2017 10:47
> *To:* Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; 
> janowicz@ucsb.edu; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; 
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Different or same Namespace for SOSA/SSN
>
> ISSUE-80 is specifically addressed towards the namespace issue. The 
> two proposals are very similar, but have been a point of contention 
> for some. Whatever we chose, does not impact further integration 
> issues, mainly the unresolved issue if we either reuse URIs only (and 
> narrow their semantics) or use equivalence/sub-class relations in SSN.
>
> We were working through Kerry’s architecture proposal in our telco on 
> the 31^st of January https://www.w3.org/2017/01/31-sdwssn-minutes 
>  where we got stuck on the URIs, the ontology file (which has been 
> resolved since) and the namespace. If we have a consensus in our next 
> meeting, I will propose to close ISSUE-80. We still have the more 
> general integration issues pending, i.e. 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/115 and 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/139.
>
> *From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr 
> <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 9:16 pm
> *To: *Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu 
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu 
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: Different or same Namespace for SOSA/SSN
>
> Please, I would like us to wait and keep ISSUE-80 open for until the 
> integration process is complete,
>
> As you may have noticed, these two proposals are very, very similar 
> technically.
>
> It would be quite easy to swap from one to another.
>
> So would I suggest we keep using two different namespaces for now, and 
> discuss *once the integration process is complete* the pro and cons of 
> these different solutions.
>
> I don't think most of the participants get the full picture and 
> implications of one or the other solutions anyways, for now.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Maxime
>
> Le mer. 8 févr. 2017 à 04:44, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>> a écrit :
>
>     Thanks Maxime for the additions to the Wiki!
>
>     I think this is now very detailed and we can proceed to vote on
>     the last part of the issue embedded in ISSUE-80
>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/80
>     <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/80>. Are we using
>     one unifying namespace or are we using different namespaces in our
>     next telco.
>
>     *From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr
>     <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 3:52 am
>     *To: *"janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>"
>     <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>, Kerry Taylor
>     <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, Armin
>     Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>,
>     "public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>"
>     <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
>     *Subject: *Re: Different or same Namespace for SOSA/SSN
>
>     Sure !
>
>     I think we agreed on this before ...
>
>     Le mar. 7 févr. 2017 à 17:45, Krzysztof Janowicz
>     <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> a écrit :
>
>         Just to make sure, in all cases we assume that there are two
>         separate files and two separate URLs.
>
>
>
>         On 02/07/2017 06:58 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
>             Sanity-checked!
>
>             *From:*Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, 7 February 2017 3:09 PM
>             *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>             *Subject:* Different or same Namespace for SOSA/SSN
>
>             Hi,
>
>             I have made an attempt to showcase the implementation of
>             using different or the same namespace for SOSA and SSN on
>             a new wiki page:
>
>             **
>
>             https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/NamespaceIssue
>
>             Currently we have an implementation that follows the two
>             namespace proposal.
>
>             Can I ask, in particular, the advocates of only having one
>             namespace for SOSA/SSN to sanity-check the implementation
>             option on the Wiki. As this is rather unusual ontology
>             design, I don’t know if I have captured the intention
>             correctly.
>
>             Kind regards,
>
>             Armin
>
>         -- 
>
>         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 Thursday, 9 February 2017 03:49:37 UTC

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