- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:50:30 -0800
- To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "phila@w3.org" <phila@w3.org>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "ssimmons@opengeospatial.org" <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>, "fd@w3.org" <fd@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <39ea5611-f5d8-a9ca-cc31-86cf995624a9@ucsb.edu>
> *Is there someone arguing for different namespaces willing to put the
> pro argument out there in public, please?*
We have two namespaces already. They are in the public first working
draft. Could you also please reply to the hasSubSystem issue, that was
rather unclear to me. Did you made the changes or not?
Thanks a lot,
best,
Jano
**
On 01/30/2017 05:20 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> >Only if the formal axioms for the SSN concept are reasonably identical to the
> informal ones for the SOSA concept should we reuse the SOSA concept
> directly."
>
> And that is exactly what we should be doing. We can make it so. There
> is nothing preventing us from making it so!
>
> >“hopefully (and my understanding of the process) SOSA is identical to
> SSN semantics except where some limitation or extended scope has been
> identified, in which case the original SSN concept should be a
> subclass of the SOSA term.
>
> I would go a step further --- “except where some limitation or
> extended scope has been identified”.
>
> If such a limitation or extended scope is identified (and I don’t
> think any such has been aired at all yet, with the possible exception
> of platform issue-88), then this is solvable too without resorting to
> mindless subclassing. I hope my worked example for platform
> demonstrates that. Judicious changes to old ssn to adjust to scope
> requirements (especially when driven by our use cases) is perfectly
> appropriate in this standards phase. Arbitrary changes to ssn **just
> because,** are a bad idea, though. There is no reason at all to
> believe that SOSA as currently on github is the SOSA that we are
> forced to accept, either. Indeed our evaluation of our new SOSA badly
> needs an architectural/modularity framework in which to judge it.
>
> Only laziness prevents that happening well. How could we even
> consider, as I understand the alternative architecture relying on
> alignments has,
>
> to publish something anywhere that requires ssn:Sensor
> rdfs:subClassOf sosa:Sensor ?
>
> Your 1-5 summary is helpful. I would add to that
>
> 6) Terms of the same intended meaning with different names
>
> 7) Poorer documentation – counterpart in case your (1) does not cover
> both cases which both exist
>
> >So, if all is good, SSN-2 just uses SOSA namespace and entities and is just a
> graph holding axioms that support a specific logic, and gives the user
> the power (and requirement) to perform additional reasoning. As Jano
> says, SOSA users may not comply with the SSN axioms, but probably
> ought to as they are probably formalisms of the wordy definitions in
> SOSA. If we have no subclassing in SSN, or broadening of semantics,
> and only "extend" the expressivity - then SSN could be a semantic
> validator for SOSA instances perhaps?
>
> +1. I like your “semantic validator” idea a lot but noting that (a) I
> am personally not certain that the same namespace cannot or should
> not be used. This seems to be an unsupported assertion (not entirely
> unsupported, but almost ). *Is there someone arguing for different
> namespaces willing to put the pro argument out there in public,
> please?* (b) SSN will also add new terms that are not even present in
> SOSA, but I suspect that is what you mean anyway.
>
> >This still gives SOSA and SSN different functional roles, but common
> semantics - and that makes a lot of sense as a rationale to me. i
> think this is what Kerry is getting at - but as always we humans have
> imperfect communication :-)
>
> Thank you for making the effort!
>
> Kerry
>
> *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 31 January 2017 8:17 AM
> *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Rob
> Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>; Armin Haller
> <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au; phila@w3.org;
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Cc:* ssimmons@opengeospatial.org; fd@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: State of SSN
>
> As Josh puts it "wrt the specific relationship between similar
> concepts in SOSA and SSN, if the set of individuals for the SSN
> concept is smaller than that for the SOSA concept (the usual effect of
> restrictions) then the SSN concept should be a subclass of the SOSA
> concept. Only if the formal axioms for the SSN concept are reasonably
> identical to the informal ones for the SOSA concept should we reuse
> the SOSA concept directly."
>
> hopefully (and my understanding of the process) SOSA is identical to
> SSN semantics except where some limitation or extended scope has been
> identified, in which case the original SSN concept should be a
> subclass of the SOSA term.
>
> Summary of what may be different (in entity definition, not including
> axioms) between SOSA and SSN (on a term by term basis):
>
> 1) Improved documentation, but no change in definition
>
> 2) Broaden definition from original SSN - but include original in scope
>
> 3) New term not in original SSN scope
>
> 4) Errata from SSN being addressed (if any)
>
> 5) terms from SSN that are deemed to be out of scope for SOSA (I
> havent seen a case for any such thing)
>
> So, if all is good, SSN-2 just uses SOSA namespace and entities and is
> just a graph holding axioms that support a specific logic, and gives
> the user the power (and requirement) to perform additional reasoning.
> As Jano says, SOSA users may not comply with the SSN axioms, but
> probably ought to as they are probably formalisms of the wordy
> definitions in SOSA. If we have no subclassing in SSN, or broadening
> of semantics, and only "extend" the expressivity - then SSN could be a
> semantic validator for SOSA instances perhaps?
>
> This still gives SOSA and SSN different functional roles, but common
> semantics - and that makes a lot of sense as a rationale to me. i
> think this is what Kerry is getting at - but as always we humans have
> imperfect communication :-)
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 03:29 Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> wrote:
>
> Ø) Where SSN needs to create specialisations it can subclass
> as required, in a new namespace - which can resolve to the
> SSN-2 graph
>
> No. And this may be the nub. SSN should only ever extend sosa
> concepts , never subclass. We should standardise the name and
> meaning of a core term (by its rdfs:comment) in the core and
> add deeper axiomatic semantics in extended ssn (acknowledgment
> to Raul for this).
>
> Okay, Kerry, so please show us the OWL axiom by which an SSN
> concept 'extends' an SOSA concept without subclassing it? :-)
>
>
>
>
> On 01/30/2017 06:35 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> Thankyou Rob,
>
> I am really grateful that you summarised one possible
> architecture package. And as far as I can make out it
> accurately reflects one coherent option being proposed
> (although it missed perhaps the rdfs’comments part).
>
> I would like to comment on these 1 by 1 wrt the architecture I
> have proposed over emails and have jst now documented on the wiki.
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
>
> Ø1) Regardless of what we call it there will be a new namespace
>
> Not accepted by me and some others. There might be a new
> namespace, but this is highly dependent on architecture as I
> see it.
>
> Ø2) SOSA contains the broad, inclusive, definitions for things
> we care about - i.e. it will be what lives behind that
> namespace URL and require no specific reasoning on the client
> side ("lightweight" to use)
>
> Agreed (with caveat on “that namespace”)
>
> Ø3) SSN-2 can import and reference these SOSA entities and add
> additonal axioms (in a flavour of OWL with a specific
> expressivity which we should document the intent). (richer
> semantics but more demanding to use)
>
> Agreed (with important caveats about how that richer semantics
> is related to the sosa entities ). Also, unless we have
> strong arguments to the contrary, ssn has existed and been
> widely used for 5+ years (legacy) and we should only change
> what we need to change – ie for which a good argument is made
> and agreed. There is no carte blanche for ssn.
>
> Ø) Where SSN needs to create specialisations it can subclass
> as required, in a new namespace - which can resolve to the
> SSN-2 graph
>
> No. And this may be the nub. SSN should only ever extend sosa
> concepts , never subclass. We should standardise the name and
> meaning of a core term (by its rdfs:comment) in the core and
> add deeper axiomatic semantics in extended ssn (acknowledgment
> to Raul for this).
>
> . 5) informative "Alignments" help others use and understand -
> but dont affect SOSA or SSN semantics - alignments with DUL
> and iso-19150 flavour O&M
>
> The alignment with dul has been removed from ssn as you know,
> but it does affect semantics in that it is implicit in all ssn
> concepts and, if not, requires bigger changes to ssn than I am
> willing to make (remember legacy). So it is “otpional” you
> don’t have to use it but, just as for sosa terms, the
> descriptions of ssn terms (rdfs:comment) should be consistent
> with using the dul alignment.
>
> As for o&M alignment (repeating myself) I believe we need an
> alignment with O&M the OGC standard (which, yes is uml, but
> we can use the “terms” as defined in the standard – and old
> ssn already did that for us anyway!)). I am wary of an
> iso-19150 flavour alignment because it might suggest that we
> think it should or even could be used, and I don’t think we do
> believe that, following the discussion at the last meeting.
> FWIW, I don’t believe that based on personal experience.
>
> > My naive understanding is if we publish an alignment using
> strong axioms (equivalence or subclass?) then we are able to
> use original SSN deployments as evidence of implementation ...
> of the subset of semantics - but we'd still need IMHO to
> demonstrate the broader sense and any new concepts. So its not
> trivial and we'd need a plan anyway - maybe its easier just to
> get someone to upgrade their legacy SSN to the new SOSA scope
> and namespace and show the broader definitions are usable
> directly.
>
> Phil has advised us to be wary of being driven by the
> implementation demands. However, as the implementation
> requirements and goals to serve our legacy users align well ,
> I believe we should be able to use implelementation evidence
> from the old terms. If we follow the architecture I propose
> then this **could** carry over to sosa terms as well, I think
> – but that is my untested theory and is only happenstance. In
> any case, as you saty we do need the evidence for any new
> concepts.
>
> -Kerry
>
> *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, 30 January 2017 11:59 AM
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; Armin Haller
> <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>;
> Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; phila@w3.org
> <mailto:phila@w3.org>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Cc:* ssimmons@opengeospatial.org
> <mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>; fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: State of SSN
>
> I think Kerry is correct to say we need to get on the same
> page with the "architecture" - and until we do that its hard
> to actually understand everybody's positions. Perhaps we focus
> on what that architecture means for users and the process?
>
> Here's my understanding of that architecture:
>
> 1) Regardless of what we call it there will be a new namespace
>
> 2) SOSA contains the broad, inclusive, definitions for things
> we care about - i.e. it will be what lives behind that
> namespace URL and require no specific reasoning on the client
> side ("lightweight" to use)
>
> 3) SSN-2 can import and reference these SOSA entities and add
> additonal axioms (in a flavour of OWL with a specific
> expressivity which we should document the intent). (richer
> semantics but more demanding to use)
>
> 4) Where SSN needs to create specialisations it can subclass
> as required, in a new namespace - which can resolve to the
> SSN-2 graph
>
> 5) informative "Alignments" help others use and understand -
> but dont affect SOSA or SSN semantics - alignments with DUL
> and iso-19150 flavour O&M
>
> All this is pretty straightforward IMHO until we hit the
> "legacy SSN" case
>
> My naive understanding is if we publish an alignment using
> strong axioms (equivalence or subclass?) then we are able to
> use original SSN deployments as evidence of implementation ...
> of the subset of semantics - but we'd still need IMHO to
> demonstrate the broader sense and any new concepts. So its not
> trivial and we'd need a plan anyway - maybe its easier just to
> get someone to upgrade their legacy SSN to the new SOSA scope
> and namespace and show the broader definitions are usable
> directly.
>
> Rob
>
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 at 10:53 Kerry Taylor
> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> wrote:
>
> _>Option 2: SSN new imports SOSA *and* “extends”
> classes/properties from SOSA: _In this option both ontologies
> use a separate namespace, but /SSN new/ extends >SOSA, meaning
> /SSN new/ uses the SOSA namespace for concepts/properties that
> are shared between SOSA and /SSN new/ and “extends” (narrows)
> them with >stronger OWL axiomatizations.
>
> This is close, but not an accurate representation of my
> position. Please see the multiply-posted comments under the
> topic of issue-88 , including but by no means limited to :
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0099.html
>
> I will endeavour to write it up again on the wiki --- with a
> worked example if I can for the next ssn meeting, although I
> cannot promise to complete in time.
>
> I would like to add that I don’t see how these things can be
> solved term by term or comment-by-comment as is currently
> proposed by the Chair. The architecture of modularisation has
> been questioned for a **very** long time (and there are
> multiple unresolved issues on the tracker on this topic e.g.
> issue-37, issue-115, issue-120, issue-139) yet has failed to
> be fully articulated ---- so it seems we all have,
> unsurprisingly, different interpretations of the intention.
> The fact that sosa , as the “core” module of ssn, was
> developed quite independently of ssn and with apparent
> disregard of these modularisation/architecture questions is
> rather unfortunate --- but nothing that can not be fixed.
>
> And, for the record, I do not accept that that any alignment
> between ssn or sosa is either useful or necessary. It is
> frankly absurd that an ontology needs to be ”aligned” with
> it’s own core! The alignment proposed in the past week is
> also highly faulty – I need to put this opinion on the record
> only because I am wary of being told again that “we all
> agreed” with something that has simply been posted to github
> by surprise. However, because I believe it is neither useful
> nor necessary I will not go into details of the faults here.
>
> --Kerry
>
> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu
> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 26 January 2017 2:09 PM
> *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au
> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; phila@w3.org
> <mailto:phila@w3.org>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Cc:* ssimmons@opengeospatial.org
> <mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>; fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: State of SSN
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thanks Armin for the nice summary!
>
> Please note however that option 3 would contradict our own
> figures and draft as pointed out by Phil and this figure (and
> text) has been around for a year now.
>
> Options 1 and 2 are what we need and as SSN imports SOSA
> anyway, 2 may be easier solution.
>
> Wrt to the comments, I agree with the idea in general (and
> proposed it myself before) but think we need to be very, very
> careful here. *Abstract* comments are almost never a good idea
> and may actually hurt SOSA *and* SSN. Again, just to be clear
> about this, ideally we would have the same comment but this
> comment has to be on a level that is directly understandable
> and usable, i.e., not too abstract.
>
> Frankly speaking, I am not so happy with having them reworked
> all at a time by a single person and then presented. Why don't
> we use the next 2-3 telco's to do this together class by
> class as a group so that we do not have to re-discuss them
> afterwards over and over again to find a compromise. We are
> really running late by now :-)
>
> Cheers and thanks again!
> Jano
>
> P.s. Let us also please switch back to a mode where everybody
> participates regularly and does not merely jump in a few times
> per year to revisit decisions taken months ago, and let us
> also all work in a constructive and supportive atmosphere. We
> have a great and impactful product and we are all interested
> in getting it in the best possible shape.
>
>
>
> On 01/25/2017 03:36 PM, Armin Haller wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for raising these points. I had a longer F2F
> conversation with Kerry yesterday to discuss her concerns
> around the SOSA/SSN alignment and the more general issue
> she raised with
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/139. I think
> I now understand her preference, which I will outline in
> this email. Before, I want to more clearly outline the
> options we have in terms of alignment between SOSA and
> /SSN new /as of Point 6 from Phil below, seeing SOSA as
> the core as already outlined in the first working draft.
>
> _Option 1: SSN new imports SOSA *and*
> equivalence/subclass/subproperty relations are defined in
> SSN_: In this option both ontologies use a separate
> namespace and /SSN ne/w introduces its own
> classes/properties (in its own namespace) even for
> concepts/properties that are common to both ontologies,
> while doing so asserting equivalence and
> subclass/subproperty relations for those classes that are
> common and where appropriate.
>
> _Option 2: SSN new imports SOSA *and* “extends”
> classes/properties from SOSA: _In this option both
> ontologies use a separate namespace, but /SSN new/ extends
> SOSA, meaning /SSN new/ uses the SOSA namespace for
> concepts/properties that are shared between SOSA and /SSN
> new/ and “extends” (narrows) them with stronger OWL
> axiomatizations.
>
> _Option 3: SSN does not import SOSA *and* alignment
> between SOSA and SSN is defined in a separate
> file/namespace:_ This approach is similar to how we align
> /SSN new/ to DULCE, i.e. the alignment is in a separate
> file with its separate namespace.
>
> Although my personal preference from the beginning was on
> Option 2, my belief was that some group members are
> against this option, in particular, Kerry, and I was under
> the working assumption that at best we will achieve Option
> 3. In my discussion with Kerry yesterday she made it very
> clear that she prefers _direct usage of SOSA
> classes/properties in SSN new_. This includes the
> introduction of properties in /SSN new/ that are defined
> in SOSA for simplicity (traversing a property path of SSN
> new) while adding axioms to ensure the equivalence of
> these simplified properties to a property path. This also
> means that rdfs:comments will be shared between SOSA and
> /SSN new/. Since neither of the rdfs:comments in our
> mapping table on the wiki
> (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table)
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table%29>
> are yet particularly suited for this purpose, the proposal
> was:
>
> -To create one very abstract description for each shared
> concept that _DOES NOT_ refer to classes/properties (i.e.
> using capital letters or camel casing), but uses English
> natural language. This rdfs:comment can then be
> _supplemented by annotation properties_ in the two
> respective namespaces of SOSA and SSN new. These
> annotation properties can add examples, refer to classes
> and properties in the respective namespace using capital
> letters and describe the stronger semantics as required by
> /SSN new/.
>
> *If there is no objection from the group, I have
> volunteered to start with such an abstract description for
> the rdfs:comments in the mapping table. *I cannot
> guarantee to finish by our meeting next week, but I will
> attempt to at least finish some of those.
>
> Beyond that, the agreement with Kerry was that we continue
> (in the phone calls) with addressing the issues that have
> been already identified (by her) in the issue tracker in
> the alignment between SOSA and /SSN new/.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Armin
>
> On 25/1/17, 11:28 pm, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au"
> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Thanks Phil -
>
> Just want to comment on your item 2.
>
> SOSA is not 'inspired by O&M' any more than it is by
> any of the other prior work. It was an attempt to define a
> core with lightweight semantics for an audience interested
> in describing observations, actuation or sampling. The
> hope was that it could also serve as a core for more
> semantically rich vocabularies, along the lines proposed
> by Jano (aka vertical and horizontal modularization). So
> the scope of SOSA is broad but it is axiomatically shallow
> - deliberately not much more than schema-org style.
> Certainly it picks up some ideas from O&M, in particular
> the notion of Samples, but it also picks up ideas from IoT
> (Actuators) and SSN (Platform, properties of Sensors).
> SOSA is definitely not something that has just come from
> the O&M camp.
>
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 January, 2017 20:41
>
> To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>
> Cc: Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>
> <mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>; Francois Daoust
> <fd@w3.org> <mailto:fd@w3.org>
>
> Subject: State of SSN
>
> Dear all,
>
> As team contact for the WG, my role is not necessarily
> to get involved in every aspect of each of our
> deliverables. As is abundantly clear from our discussions
> over the last couple of years, the WG members are the
> domain experts, not me. But, all is not well in the state
> of SSN and so I feel that I need to take a more active
> position. My mail on Monday [1] is part of that.
>
> My understanding of the current situation is likely to
> be less than 100% accurate - I know that - but what I see is:
>
> 1. There is a lot of prior work that predates the WG:
> SSN, O&M, Dolce.
>
> 2. There is SOSA, which is, I think I'm right in
> saying, largely inspired by the work to represent O&M in
> OWL and create a simple version for wider use.
>
> 3. There is a very understandable desire to see this
> work become a formal standard - that's what we're
> chartered to do. This entails gathering evidence of usage.
> But the problem is that the evidence that exists is from
> earlier work. What's being done now might be too new and
> we may not be able to gather that implementation evidence.
> That would be a pity but it's better than a bad design
> driven by process. SSN has a reputation for being too
> complicated so let's not hesitate to simplify it.
>
> 4. The published document states clearly that SOSA is
> the core and that SSN is an outer ring, with O&M and Dolce
> Ultra Lite alignments outside both.
>
> 5. There is a debate about whether the alignments,
> especially with O&M, should be normative. In favour: O&M
> is a formal standard and it feels right to me that it
> should be but I'm open to persuasion either way.
>
> 6. There is a debate about whether the SOSA-SSN
> relationship should be couched as sub classes/properties
> or whether one should be an extension of the other. That's
> a legitimate technical argument. Over to you to sort it -
> but as a design principle, please don't have the same
> property/class names in the two namespaces with different
> semantics (ssn:Platform and sosa:Platform, for example).
> My instinct is to prefer direct usage over sub classes but
> that's a generalist's view.
>
> 7. There is work going on concerning the SOSA-SSN
> alignment that is being shared piecemeal, issue by issue.
> That is not right. Put it on the wiki or GH, argue about
> it, edit it in front of everyone. The idea of "we'll share
> it when it's finished" is not the way we should work.
>
> 8. There is a lot of unhappiness in the SSN group at
> the moment, which is unfortunate and needs to be fixed
> before everyone walks away.
>
> 9. If the group so wishes, we can easily arrange a one
> off long telco.
>
> Phil.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0096.html
>
> --
>
> Phil Archer
>
> Data Strategist, W3C
>
> http://www.w3.org/ <http://www.w3.org/>
>
> http://philarcher.org
>
> +44 (0)7887 767755 <tel:+44%207887%20767755>
>
> @philarcher1
>
> --
>
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
>
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
>
>
> Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
>
> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
>
> 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 <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
>
> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
>
> 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, 31 January 2017 04:51:29 UTC