W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

Re: SOSA/SSN integration architecture

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:59:04 -0800
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: 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: <3901e8ad-1f59-3814-01d2-418e6c70ec36@ucsb.edu>
On 02/28/2017 11:55 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> I dont think Simon meant any form of change - i.e. are talking about 
> adding axioms to support the text definition, in a particular 
> formalism.  (i also originally misunderstood the intention to be 
> referring to SSN making narrower scoped subclasses.)
>
> therefore -1 for anything that suggests change: hijack, override, 
> overload all fail that criterion.

But many of the proposals do just that, right?

>
> "Precises" is a bit weird, but not so misleading - it feels like 
> "creating a precis" - i.e. a summary, which is not quite right - 
> unless you consider it  a precis of the text definitions expressed in 
> OWL...
>
> axiomatise, adds axioms to, formalises  ... ?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 at 06:27 Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu 
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Yes, but note that the idea of /encapsulation/ does not exist in
>     RDF, OWL, and so forth.
>
>
>     On 02/28/2017 11:25 AM, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
>>     My mistake. The term I intended was “Overriding” which is a local
>>     re-implementation of an existing method + signature. Generally
>>     the intent is to provide similar behavior but in a different
>>     execution context.
>>
>>     Josh
>>
>>>     On Feb 28, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz
>>>     <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 02/28/2017 11:06 AM, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
>>>>     “Overloading” ?
>>>
>>>     I am a bit more concerned about SOSA, SSN, SSN-OLD, SSN+DUL, and
>>>     so forth all creating different results when performing
>>>     reasoning (or even just simple SPARQL queries). IMHO, we need to
>>>     be as clear as possible about what to expect when using these
>>>     classes and enable users to clearly distinguish between them. If
>>>     I see a triple and I have no way of immediately knowing what it
>>>     implies, that would be very concerning to me (but maybe not to
>>>     others, or maybe I am simply missing something). This is also
>>>     true for overloading in programming languages, the method's
>>>     signature tells you what has changed.
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>     Jano
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>     On Feb 28, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz
>>>>>     <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     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>
>>>>>>     <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
>>>>>>     *Date:*Saturday, 25 February 2017 at 12:30 am
>>>>>>     *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>, 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
>>>>>>     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
>>>>>>     writtenhttp://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
>>>>>>


-- 
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 19:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:30 UTC