- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:15:25 +0100
- To: 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>
> 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. I may agree with this argument if i) sosa:Platform was an "established" and used concept *and* if ii) ssn:Platform didn't exist already but we have nearly the exact opposite situation here! I would rather suggest to stop re-inventing the wheel. 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 18:15:58 UTC