Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture

Dear all,

I added a list of high level PROPOSAL proposals, these may help us proceed
by dichotomy among the options.

The table cells contain a high level description of the options, not the
implications.
What is it that confuses you? the lines headers? the columns headers? the
terms "declare" and "refines"? something else?

Two of the new options in the table are now detailed as option 6 and option
7.

There is a "vote" section under each of these options for us to express our
preferences.
Would love option 1 -  Strongly opposed to options 2, 3, 4 - Could live
with options 5, 6, 7

Some of Rob's ideas in former Option are gathered in
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Make_SSN_reachable_from_SOSA_using_seeAlso_and_comment


Kind regards,
Maxime

Le lun. 27 févr. 2017 à 07:23, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> a
écrit :

Thanks Maxime. I have to say the table confuses me a bit, though. Not sure
if it helps others, who don’t necessarily intimately understand the
options. Others?



I have merged Simon’s and Rob’s options and denoted it as Option 5.



I think the page is fairly stable now and we have discussed potential
derivations of each Option. I would ask everyone now to have their opinions
heard in terms of preference. Maybe also mention what Option you can
definitely not live with and what options are acceptable to you as a
compromise.







*From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
*Date: *Sunday, 26 February 2017 at 10:44 pm
*To: *Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <
rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "
public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>


*Subject: *Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture



Dear all,



I added a section
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/index.php?title=Integration_Issue&action=submit#Possible_options_in_a_nutshell
with
a table that summarizes several options, including some that are not
detailed in the wiki page.





About Option 5:



To me it's also equivalent to option 2b/3c, but it provides interesting
features that can be propagated to all of the other options. Some
precisions:



The introductory sentence is misleading:

 - It mentions that it's "same as option 1, except...". Yet, two namespaces
are defined in option 5, whereas only one is defined in option 1. I would
not say option 5 is the "same as option 1" because of this.

 - It says "new terms are introduced into a module-specific namespace". It
appears in the snippets that this "modules-specific namespace" is the ssn:
namespace. I would rephrase this sentence as "New terms are introduced in
the ssn: namespace"

 - It says "any semantic changes to definitions require new terms". It is
also assumed in all of the other options that SSN brings no semantic change
to SOSA terms, but instead precises their semantics. In those cases where
an "equivalence" relation is used between a SOSA term and its duplicate SSN
term, then SSN terms indirectly precise the semantics of the duplicated
SOSA terms.

 - About "Behaviours are consistent with W3C architecture, and will work
best with compliant tools, but are recoverable (i.e. supported by
documentation hints) if tools make loose assumptions.", see my comments
below.



snippet sosa.ttl:

 - it mentions "sosa:Ontology", which is not defined (is it a typo and you
wanted to use ssn:Ontology ?)

 - the rdfs:comment s provides relevant information and could be used in
the other options. I suggest we add this triple along with "rdfs:seeAlso
ssn:Ontology" in sosa.ttl snippets of other options.



snippet ssn.ttl:

 - the rdfs:comment s provides relevant information and could be used in
the other options. I suggest we add this triple in ssn.ttl snippets of
other options.

 - it mentions "unify:Platform" which is not defined in this option (is it
a typo and you wanted to use sosa:Platform ?)

 - rdfs:subClassOf ssn:System ; should either be in all options, or
nowhere. I suggest we delete.



snippets FlibberSensors.ttl and FlobberSensors.ttl

 - I like the definition of Flibber and Flobber in the urban dic :-) are
they commonly used like Foo and Bar ?

 - these snippets are relevant to any of the other options as well. I
suggest either we add them there, or remove altogether .



"And the final mechanism: if you ask for sosa: or sosa:Definitions using
mimetype for OWL, then you get redirected to ssn:Ontology". I suggest we do
not implement this mechanism.

 - as you "303 redirect" to the URL of the SSN ontology, I agree that this
mechanism conforms to the Web architecture principles. i.e., your are not
"200 OK serving" two different RDF Graphs at the same URL.

 - This mechanism may be documented in the spec, but existing Sem Web will
ignore it. In fact, most Sem Web tools accept preferably
application/rdf+xml. This is the case for OWLAPI [1], and is therefore the
case in Protégé. What's worse, any tool that accepts preferably
application/owl+xml will never be able to load SOSA from its IRI. Yet, SOSA
is a perfectly valid OWL DL Ontology, although it has very few axioms.



Kind regards,

Maxime



[1] - see class DocumentSource.java and its variable REQUESTTYPES,
https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi/search?q=openConnection



Le dim. 26 févr. 2017 à 06:36, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> a
écrit :

I agree that hijacking conveys a negative meaning. Raphaël already
mentioned earlier that he does not want to convey that negative meaning, so
your renaming to “precises” is good.



We could make Option 2b/3c just Option 5. I will wait for Rob’s response,
but as it looks to Simon and me, these two options are the same.



*From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
*Date: *Saturday, 25 February 2017 at 12:30 am
*To: *Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Armin Haller <
armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "
public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>


*Subject: *Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture



Dear all,





I checked the options 2 to 4 and corrected some inconsistencies with
respect to the URIs of the ontologies. :

 - the URI of the SOSA ontology is once written http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/,
and once written unify:localname. From this one can infer that ''unify''
equals "sosa", and ''localname'' equals the empty string.

 - the URI of the SSN ontology is also written unify:localname, so it has
 the  same URI as the SOSA ontology.





The object of the rdfs:isDefinedBy is often the ontology where the term is
defined, not the namespace.

I updated the snippets to reflect this. Please tell me if you think
otherwise.





I believe term "hijacking" is not well chosen here. It's conveys a negative
meaning, and does not reflect what is actually happening:

SSN "refines", or "precises" the semantics of some SOSA terms. I changed
hijacking to "precises".





In option 2b/3c, SOSA and SSN are  not in the same namespace, hence I
hardly see why it would  be considered  as a variant of option 2.



I just added some spaces in option 5 to correct the "code" sections.



Kind regards,

Maxime



Le ven. 24 févr. 2017 à 09:03, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> a
écrit :

And the mime type handling is a corner case that only applies to the case
of clients who want owl and gind resources that dont use explicit imports -
ir instead choose to rely on namespace only (if indeed such clients exist)



On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 6:36 PM Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:

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/