Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture



On 23/2/17, 7:18 pm, "Raphaël Troncy" <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:

    > Yes, your interpretation is correct. Were confused about the term “extension”? Any suggestions to change that name to make it clearer? Module?
    
    I would propose to rename:
    
    "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"
    
    by:
    
    "2: One unified namespace and a separate module namespace ONLY for terms 
    that are further axiomitized in SSN. Use of equivalent class and 
    equivalent property relations in SSN to SOSA terms"

➢ Done, changed it on the Wiki. I think that makes it clearer.
    
    > You can get the terms that are only defined in the core, because mechanically we would do the same on the server Maxime proposed for Option 2 in the NamespaceIssue. Every term that is defined in the core, when put in the browser, will lead to the core, i.e. unify:Platform will give you SOSA. Any other term that is defined in SOSA will give you SOSA. Only terms that are defined under the extension URI in SSN will give you SSN.
    
    OK, but this means, I have to dereference each term to see whether it is 
    a CORE term or not and I cannot simply rely on the "unify" namespace 
    (per definition of unify). I think this should be written as an implication.
 
➢ You can use the ontology URI to figure out which terms are in the core (SOSA). It is the same behaviour as in Option 1. In Option 1 you also either need to dereference each term to figure out where it is defined or to use the ontology URI of SOSA or SSN explicitly. If you think this is an important caveat, you can spell that out in the implication for both options.

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 11:14:34 UTC