Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture

On 02/23/2017 09:23 PM, Armin Haller wrote:
>
> Now that you have described your option, I don’t see any difference to 
> Option 3b which itself is a slight variant of Option 2 (reusing of 
> terms ONLY rather than reintroducing terms within the new namespace).
>
> You define terms in SOSA.
>
> In SSN you import these terms and add axioms.
>
> If the term has not been introduced in SOSA, you define it in the new 
> module-specific namespace (SSN).
>
> If I interpret this correctly, it is exactly Option 3b with the 
> addition of the mechanism of handling MIME types.
>

And the way how MIME types are used here does not make anybody nervous?

> *From: *Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
> *Date: *Friday, 24 February 2017 at 1:58 pm
> *To: *Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, 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>
> *Subject: *Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture
>
> Have added option 5 and some clarifications to issue scope (i.e. what 
> does extended mean)
>
> Rob
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 at 13:13 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au 
> <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>> wrote:
>
>     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
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>
>         *Date: *Friday, 24 February 2017 at 6:09 am
>         *To: *Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
>         <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>>, Armin Haller
>         <armin.haller@anu.edu.au <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>,
>         "public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>"
>         <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> &
>             raphael.troncy@gmail.com <mailto:raphael.troncy@gmail.com>
>             Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 <tel:04%2093%2000%2082%2042>
>             Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <tel:04%2090%2000%2082%2000>
>             Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
>             <http://www.eurecom.fr/%7Etroncy/>
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net