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

Hi Kerry,


I thought it made sense to keep to rdf alone.

 I understood the sentiment favoured instead some kind of “simple” OWL.


I believe so, it makes then a bit strange to try to "prevent" the use of
OWL reasoners with SOSA. I'm not very fond of schema at all, and if you
ask, I'd add rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and owl:inverseOf in SOSA.

But I think I understood that schema:domainIncludes and
schema:rangeIncludes may be commented out some day, as is the case in QB4ST
?

 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.

yes, owl:inverseOf is more complex than the annotation property
schema: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.


(C) would have been the option I would have proposed if I was following the
discussion at that point. It consists in using schema:inverseOf the exact
same way we use schema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes, i.e. for
example:

schema:domainIncludes a owl:AnnotationProperty .
schema:rangeIncludes a owl:AnnotationProperty .
schema:inverseOf a owl:AnnotationProperty .

sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest a owl:ObjectProperty ;
  schema:domainIncludes sosa:Observation ;
  schema:rangeIncludes sosa:FeatureOfInterest ;
  schema:rangeIncludes sosa:Sample ;
  schema:inverseOf sosa:isFeatureOfInterestOf .



So +0 from me.



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


no worries, but I just saw that the following documents also use it:
 - ssn/rdf/sam.ttl
 - ssn/rdf/om.ttl
 - qb4st/ontology/qb4st.ttl

Kind regards,
Maxime