- From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:03:50 -0500
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Cox, Simon (CESRE, Kensington)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
If I understand correctly, the effect of introducing additional axioms in SSN is to make ssn:some_class members a subset, and therefore the class a subclass of sosa:some_class. So the subclass relationship should express clearly the relationship between the two concepts. If it is true that no additional axiomatization is being applied in ssn, then reusing the sosa:some_class in ssn also makes sense, but that will be rare I should think. It certainly has not been clear up until now, though, what the best rdf/owl engineering practice should be to realize this sort of modularization, so clear, well documented examples and explanations would really help establish the options. —Josh > On Jan 24, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote > Hi Krzysztof, > > You're arguing about any sosa/ssn classes in general while I'm discussing specific classes on which there seem to be an agreement to get rid of most of the axioms. I don't see why sosa could not re-use specific ssn classes on which there is little or no axiomatization, and even worse, define a new class with exactly the same annotation properties ... this is the fastest road to confuse developers. > > 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 > Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 > Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 18:04:51 UTC