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

RE: ssn: issue-72 inverse properties in sosa-core

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 04:17:21 +0000
To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SYXPR01MB15364EE757893FFB9DEBC440A4450@SYXPR01MB1536.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Maxime,
Interesting idea. However, I wanted to avoid owl:inverseOf etc to avoid OWL entirely (in order to meet the “Owl is ridiculous” and “gosh , I need to learn about owl”  crowds.)

I thought it made sense to keep to rdf alone.
 I understood the sentiment favoured instead some kind of “simple” OWL.

I, for one, never really understood  what “simple” means for sosa, but I suppose for some people it means just exactly what is in sosa now. And  just now we agreed that owl:AnnotationProperty  can appear in sosa, but I guess that that is “simpler” than owl:inverseOf.

Anyway – I think, from the arguments at the time, the schema.org solution you propose would be interpreted  as the same as “documentation” (B),   and therefore has been decided already, although I don’t recall your (C) as coming up  at the time.

So +0 from me.

Btw – the earlier question about “meta:” – mea culpa – but I stand corrected.  Great to have fresh eyes on this.

-Kerry


From: Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2017 11:41 PM
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu; Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ssn: issue-72 inverse properties in sosa-core

Dear all,

I don't want to mess around with the decisions that may have been taken already, and that I may not be aware of.
but this issue-72 is still open so I thought it could be worth adding my two cents there :

If we are so much keen in using pseudo, non Linked-data-conforming properties from schema.org<http://schema.org> , maybe it's important to let you know the following:

There is a third possibility for inverseOf:

(A)    The pair is to be related by an owl:InverseOf declaration; or
(B)    ruled-out:  The pair are not to be axiomatically  related but documentation is to be used to make the  inverse intention clear
(C)   The pair is to be related by a schema:inverseOf pseudo axiom.

To me, using that pseudo property could help remove OWL axioms completely from the term definitions.

A camp was at 8 and B camp was at 1.
How many would like to change from camp A to camp C ?

Kind regards,
Maxime

Le jeu. 10 nov. 2016 à 04:00, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> a écrit :
[Just for book keeping and without implying that this is an official vote]

This would bring the A camp to 8 and the B camp to 1 vote.


On 11/09/2016 04:05 AM, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> El 9/11/16 a las 5:07, Raphaël Troncy escribió:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>> At the next ssn meeting this will be put to the vote.  The decision to
>>> be made is between  either A or B below.
>>
>> FWIW, I would vote for (A): "The pair is to be related by an
>> owl:InverseOf declaration".
>
> Dear all,
>
> Me too.
>


--
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/

Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net


Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 04:18:01 UTC

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