- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:10:48 -0800
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, 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>
Hi Raphaël, Yes, you are right. I am trying to make a broader argument to prevent us from having to revisit the discussion over and over again. As far as the specific platform example is concerned, we can simply use the sosa:platform in the SSN ontology and thus only have one class and therefore no confusion among developers (this would be just like using DC or FOAF and so forth). We cannot do it the other way around as SOSA does not import SSN. The effect is the same: there is only one platform class with the same description and no confusion. Best, Krzysztof On 01/24/2017 09:54 AM, Raphaël Troncy 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 > -- 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, 24 January 2017 18:11:23 UTC