- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:54:39 -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, > 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. I see the point you are making, note however that we are not reinventing the wheel. SSN will be in a new namespace, will have new axioms (more specifically half of them will be gone), and also new/changed textual definitions. This is why we often talk about the 'old' SSN and the 'new' SSN. About a year ago we agreed to have a replacement for the old SSO within the old SSN by introducing a lightweight schema.org-style ontology that is now called SOSA. Being the lightweight part, we agreed that SSN would built up on SOSA by adding a stronger axiomatization as well as classes that are in SSN but not SOSA, e.g., Deployment the survival range of sensors, and so forth. Therefore the new SSN imports SOSA and adds more details on top of it. We expect that there will be substantially more SOSA users than SSN users which is analogous to the situation with schema.org. Therefore SOSA only focuses on a small subset of classes. Consequently, SOSA classes are (in almost all cases) either broader than SSN classes, i.e., SSN classes are subclasses of SOSA classes, or both are the same. See also the groups public working draft for details. Best, Krzysztof On 01/24/2017 10:15 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote: >> 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 > -- 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 18:55:14 UTC