- From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:36:59 +0000
- To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.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: <CACfF9LwRrugniX4c+ReNq251f7mPQ7Vc3+nkk_7VrBFbdR5HwQ@mail.gmail.com>
No the difference is no neec to subclass sosa terms to ssn equivalents. Perhaps this makes no difference after owl entailment but it makes a big difference in that ssn instances are not sosa instances without extra reasoning. Rob On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 4:23 PM Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> 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. > > > > *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> 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> 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 07:38:01 UTC