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

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

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:12:13 -0800
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au, rgarcia@fi.upm.es, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <39984d15-64f6-e90c-aade-627d2a17f11d@ucsb.edu>
On 02/09/2017 04:01 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> ØI'd add rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and owl:inverseOf in SOSA.
>
> Ø… chema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes may be commented out 
> some day
>
> This was discussed at length in a couple of the meetings.
>
> The general sense of the discussion was was that
>
> -rdfs:domain and rdfs:range entailments are strong and might prevent 
> use of SOSA properties by people who don’t want their things to be 
> implicitly sub-classes of something – AFAIK there has been a general 
> move away from these global constraints in pragmatic ontology 
> engineering anyway, in order to make re-use of individual terms easier.
>
> oOTOH domainIncludes/rangeIncludes are ‘permissive’, hints if you 
> like, which have no formal entailments, but have been found useful by 
> schema.org
>
> -owl:inverseOf (especially in the absence of global domain/range 
> axioms) is essentially just formalizing the documentation – we want to 
> say ‘this property is the inverse of that one’, and an OWL predicate 
> is available that already does that, so why not use it
>
> oit will be ignored by non-ontologists anyway.
>
> So your proposal looks exactly backwards from the decisions already 
> made, in terms of SOSA at least.
>

I have to agree with Simon here.

Jano

> Remember – the primary audience for SOSA is not ontologists. The goal 
> is that it is not inconsistent with a more formal system that can be 
> built on top of it, but SOSA is deliberately incomplete in both scope 
> and axiomatization. More rigorous ontology engineering is done in 
> vertical extensions, including SSN.
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr]
> *Sent:* Friday, 10 February, 2017 05:20
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; 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
>
> 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
>     <http://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
>


-- 
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 Friday, 10 February 2017 04:12:55 UTC

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