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 11:19:38 -0800
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3802500c-06a7-3d30-1602-3ef5fb29d473@ucsb.edu>
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>
>>> *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 
>>> 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>, Maxime Lefrançois
>>>             <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, Raphaël Troncy
>>>             <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>
>>>                     *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
>>>                     <mailto: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
>>>                         <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/
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>


-- 
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 20:59:54 UTC

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