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

We can also look at the specific recorded votes from absent commenters
(after our discussion to agree on the accuracy of the option descriptions)
and see if they raise any valid issues we havent properly considered.

Rob

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 12:10 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:

> Armin - our emails crossed, so I haven't wilfully ignored your request re
> votes.
>
> My opinion is still the same though - the votes relate to a wider set of
> options, and now technical clarifications have been made to better explain
> the exact difference between options then these votes are now out of
> context, but preserved in the original context and not lost.
>
> Happy to iterate to try to improve the option descriptions so  we are all
> more likely to be on the same page in interpretation of the options.
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 12:07 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> 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 Lefrançois <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
>
>