- 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