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 07:00:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LzW3deej5rMZiyyDFb9pvwdZAzM3ax_BZriRhPKe-NijA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
OK - will paste them back in modulo comments about other options


On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 at 13:52 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Can you put the votes back  on the reduced wiki page please? I don’t think
> anyone who took the trouble to express an opinion there misunderstood what
> they were doing.  If you want to remove this sentence from my comment, that
> is fine by me: “Btw I don't think the "A potential technical
> implementation..." works because there is no OWL mimetype -- only RDF-XML
> and tutrle which does not help.”
>
>
>
> Having said that, there is indeed a move to develop content negotiation
>  around “profiles” or “formats” or “data models” through IETF – our own
> Lars is working on it.
>
>
>
> -Kerry
>
> *From:* Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 March 2017 12:14 PM
>
>
> *To:* Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>; Maxime Lefrançois <
> maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2017 07:01:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 March 2017 07:01:13 UTC