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

One take on 'simple' is the entailment required.

i.e.
:A :property1 :B
:B :property2 :A
:property2 owl:inverseOf :property1

is simpler than
:A :property1 :B
:property2 owl:inverseOf :property1


because the latter require the user to use OWL reasoning to discover :B
:property2 :A

IMHO it doesnt really matter if we include owl:inverseOf  - what matters is
the entailment requirements for using the ontology itself.

Also, maybe there is a strong rationale from schema.org to have its own
version - but AFAICT its not included in the documentation :-(

Rob

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 at 15:12 Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:

> On 02/09/2017 04:01 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Ø  I'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.
>
> o   OTOH 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
>
> o   it 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
> <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>]
> *Sent:* Friday, 10 February, 2017 05:20
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>;
> janowicz@ucsb.edu; Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
> <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 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
>
>