- 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>
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
--
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