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 21:24:20 -0800
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr" <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <630ce14a-96dc-e81b-78ef-765a3c04f8be@ucsb.edu>
> *(8) *texttt{sosa:sensor}: *Such a corner use case in an academic 
> presentation?  (and not an argument  I have ever met before!) 
> Irrelevant  in most cases because the term means the same thing 
> whichever ontology URI you find it in, by design.*

Corner use case, irrelevant? I read papers every single day that do that 
and some of them are authored by you. [Also, why use offensive terms 
such as irrelevant when discussing positions and concerns?]


On 02/08/2017 09:14 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> *Responding to Simon’s question:*
>
> >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?
>
> *Not necessarily in any order:*
>
> *(0): Are you sure about SKOS having multiple namespaces? – I don’t 
> think so http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#*
>
> *(1):  Well DC is not exactly a practice we would like to follow. – 
> the multiple namespaces are shockingly confusing (my view).*
>
> *(2) PROV, otoh would have greatly benefited from some modularity  in 
> practice  that supported  the modularity it claims  in documentation. 
> We can do better.*
>
> *(3) We have the opportunity here to get “modularisation” right – I 
> think it was Josh that expressed his hope to have it as the most 
> important outcome of the group!*
>
> *(4) We know a scalable way to have as many separate ontology 
> modules/graphs/files interacting as we wish --- great design for 
> “modularity”. By using the term-at-a time  rewrites to map each term 
> to  the ontology module that introduces it in its most simple form. 
>  We can direct the term resolving to the “easiest” place.*
>
> *(5) By this method sosa users will get **exactly  the behaviour the 
> practitioners are used to.** You can get the sosa ontology from a sosa 
> uri. You can resolve any sosa term in the namespace in the usual way – 
> and get straight back to the sosa ontology (or the namespace doc , as 
> convention dictates).*
>
> *(6) Only more sophisticated ssn users would see any difference to the 
> norm.  If you are looking at the ssn ontology and you  resolve a term 
> that is not in sosa then you get the ssn full ontology – standard 
> expected behaviour, surely!  But if you resolve a term that is first 
> introduced in sosa you get the sosa core –this is the only case that 
> might be surprising – but it is a case for those who know what they 
> are doing and looking for.*
>
> *(7) Branding?  Not  an issue as far as I know. “ *i.e., a clear 
> signal that SOSA is usable on its own. “ . *Conflating matters. A 
> “clear signal that sosa is usable on its own” is much more clearly 
> sent in other ways *
>
> *(8) *texttt{sosa:sensor}: *Such a corner use case in an academic 
> presentation?  (and not an argument  I have ever met before!) 
> Irrelevant  in most cases because the term means the same thing 
> whichever ontology URI you find it in, by design.*
>
> -Kerry
>
> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 9 February 2017 2:49 PM
> *To:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; 
> maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; 
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Different or same Namespace for SOSA/SSN
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
>     <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; 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>
>     *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. 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 <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 05:24:59 UTC

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