- 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