W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2017

Re: Remaining Options for SOSA-SSN Integration, Was: SOSA/SSN integration architecture

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 23:14:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LxfyzKUaWO39OgVxoNu1kqFVn3SS+rShOb8ZUEA5Xd0Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maxime Lefran├žois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Maxime, very helpful

I would strongly suggest we remove existing votes and rationales, and
review the pros and cons first and make sure we agree,

For example,

1) for Option 1 the con Armin pointed out was there was no means to
discover the stronger axiomitisation of a SOSA term

2) Option 8 is characterised as requireing content-negotiation to discover
SOSA+OWL - that is actually the CON for Option 5, Option 8 is a solution
which explicitly avoids the con

3) the "Con" reported for Option 8 is that OWL editors may automatically
follow owl:imports when the user may not want them to. (Personally that
seems like a strange corner case and the user's problem in choice of how to
use tool





On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 00:52 Maxime Lefran├žois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
wrote:

Dear all,

This is related to  ISSUE-139 and ISSUE-146

Following the decisions made today at the F2F meeting, I created a wiki
page with the three remaining options:

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Remaining_Options_for_SOSA-SSN_Integration


This page contains the description of the three options and describes the
main pros and cons of each of them.

Best,
Maxime
Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 23:14:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 March 2017 23:14:49 UTC