- From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:09:05 +0000
- To: <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> 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. Yes. Though personally I am quite relaxed about hijacking in other cases too. It is ultimately up to the user to decide which graphs to load to support their application. If they want to incorporate axioms from a third party, then that is their choice, and they have to wear the consequences. We never expect to know all axioms about everything. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr] Sent: Thursday, 23 February, 2017 07:45 To: janowicz@ucsb.edu; Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: SDW plenary agenda item - Namespace for SOSA and SSN ontology >> 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 21:10:41 UTC