- From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:14:02 +0000
- To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfF9LxSPjSJ1ZQJm2Fin5WKH1GshTYx6sj3Z06E3YoM_o1MVw@mail.gmail.com>
IMHO My proposal is not an implementation of option 1, because new terms in SSN are added to a new namespace, and only axioms 100% compatible to SOSA are allowed in SSN against SOSA defined terms. Option 1 seems to be explicitly about the opposite strategy: new terms in SSN in the SOSA namespace and heroics in the infrastructure to manage finding these. I'm convinced its different, and simpler than the existing options and will add it - we can always remove it if people can prove one of the other cases is equivalent, Rob On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 at 10:38 Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> wrote: > Thanks! > > > > I have removed the **bold** in the implication of Option 1. I do want to > keep the implications neutral. Some people may care a lot about that > specific implication, some others not. > > > > I also deleted the statement “always the case with slash-based URIs” with > the “One needs to dereference a term to figure out where this term is > defined”. Raphaël added the yesterday as an implication. The commonly > expected behaviour/expectation with Ontology Slash URIs on the Linked Data > Web is that the ontology sits at the directory level of that term. I think > it is a valid point to make in this option that the behaviour here and in > Option 2 would be different. Again, some people may care about that, some > others not. > > > > *From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr> > *Date: *Friday, 24 February 2017 at 6:09 am > *To: *Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Armin Haller < > armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > > > *Subject: *Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture > > > > Dear all, > > > > I updated option 1, and highlighted its multiple variants, > > > > I would like to highlight variant sosa1, for which looking up the unified > namespace leads to the SOSA ontology. > > > > Kind regards, > > Maxime > > > > > > Le jeu. 23 févr. 2017 à 12:12, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> > a écrit : > > > ➢ Done, changed it on the Wiki. I think that makes it clearer. > > Thanks. > > > ➢ 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. > > I agree, this is true for both options 1 and 2. Done, I have added for > each: "* One needs to dereference a term to figure out where this term > is defined OR to use the ontology URI of SOSA or SSN explicitly since > there is just ONE unify namespace." > > Note: Option 3b is still Option 3b and not a variant of Option 1 > although it could be. > > 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 <04%2093%2000%2082%2042> > Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <04%2090%2000%2082%2000> > Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/ > >
Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 05:01:31 UTC