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

Re: SDW plenary agenda item - Namespace for SOSA and SSN ontology

From: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:07:48 +0000
To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <22657705-B358-4F47-84C9-4C88E67D694B@anu.edu.au>
Previously some people introduced the word “reuse” for what you describe as “hijacking”.

Reusing/Hijacking (e.g. SSN reusing/hijacking the Platform term that is introduced in the SOSA *without* an equivalence relation) implies for either solution, one or two namespaces that you will get to either the SOSA or the SSN RDF/OWL definition of a term, but you cannot decide/don’t know which one unless you explicitly use the ontology URI.

On 23/2/17, 7:45 am, "Raphaël Troncy" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:

    >> When adding new axioms to sosa: terms, does it do so in the sosa
    >> namespace, i.e. "hijacking" the sosa definition? Or does it clone the
    >> term in the ssn namespace with the same intended semantics but just
    >> more axioms?
    > This "hijacking"  is a concern that I also mentioned several times and
    > that I am really worried about.
    To make things clear, I put "hijacking" between quotes and I didn't want 
    to convey any negative meaning. I believe that this is ok to hijack the 
    definition of a term as soon as this is done by the same group of people.
    Raphaël Troncy
    EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
    Data Science Department
    450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
    e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
    Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
    Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
    Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/


Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 21:08:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 22 February 2017 21:08:32 UTC