- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:30:45 +0100
- To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Dear Armin, all, > I have now tried to summarise these integration options on a separate > wiki page: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Integration_Issue Thanks, this helps a lot! I have reviewed the page and I was misleaded by the title of the Option 2: "One unified namespace and a separate extension namespace for terms only defined in SSN. Use of equivalent class and equivalent property relations in SSN to SOSA terms" I first understand it as, terms (classes / properties) defined in 'extension' are *only* the ones (localname) which do not exist already in 'unify', but this is the contrary. Hence, 'System' is defined in 'unify' while not being part of the core. On the contrary, the terms defined in 'unify' but further axiomitized in 'extension' will be defined in 'extension' ... correct? If I my interpretation is correct, I suggest the label of this option to be changed. Furthermore, this would mean another 'implication': one cannot easily get ONLY the terms that belong to the core (this may be possible using isDefinedBy but not relying on namespace). I think the option 3b introduced by Simon is important and should be expanded with code snippet. Perhaps we have 5 options and not 4 actually. Best regards. 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 Thursday, 23 February 2017 07:32:48 UTC