Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture

On 02/25/2017 09:36 PM, Armin Haller wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Yes, but this depends a bit on what more we add, especially if this 
would include existential quantifications.

Jano


> 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/ <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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>             <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>
>             *Date: *Friday, 24 February 2017 at 1:58 pm
>             *To: *Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au
>             <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>, Armin Haller
>             <armin.haller@anu.edu.au
>             <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, Maxime Lefrançois
>             <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr
>             <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>, Raphaël Troncy
>             <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
>             <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>>, "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
>
>             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

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2017 18:59:30 UTC