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: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:07:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LxcqTAk8bRUKR41hLwtbAwRd0tbuwwX3Bk8DOXXQCzoJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Maxime Lefran├žois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi

I've take the liberty of correcting the key technical details per option,
and removing the copy of the old votes (which are still on the original
page).

In particular I've tried to clarify the confusion caused by loss of the
mime-type discussion of Option 5, and its subsequent unwarranted
transference of implication to option 8 - and restore the correct
distinction:

Option 1 - cannot go from SOSA to OWL axioms
Option 5 - relies on content negotiation to find OWL axioms bundled with
SSN extensions
Option 8 - use owl:imports to find OWL axioms and keep SOSA axioms separate
from SSN narrowed semantics

Again, I reiterate my concern that the use of the phrase "SOSA imports SSN"
to characterise option 8 is incorrect unless you explicitly interpret SSN
to be nothing more that the axiomitisation of SOSA, and I dont believe
anywhere we have agreed on that exact definition.

I think that we can revisit the three options now with greater focus, and
without reference to other options we have taken off the table.

Rob

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 10:13 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 21 March 2017 01:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 01:08:33 UTC