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

Re: Using rdf:Property class for properties whose URI contains string "time"

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:14:28 -0700
To: Maxime LEFRANCOIS <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57433876-4077-bcf6-614d-784336f588ec@ucsb.edu>
Yes, exactly.

On 03/28/2017 03:42 PM, Maxime LEFRANCOIS wrote:
> If we can lower the number of properties, without preventing any use 
> case and requirement to be fullfilled, then let's go!
>
> plus: it would be better for implementation evidence that: data that 
> previously used the deprecated property now can be inferred to use the 
> actual normative property.
>
> best,
> Maxime
>
> Le Mercredi, Mars 29, 2017 00:23 CEST, Krzysztof Janowicz 
> <janowicz@ucsb.edu> a écrit:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, but as I tried to describe on the wiki page[1], this is for good 
> reasons and we discussed them a few times several months ago. 
> PhenomenonTime needs to be able to deal with more complex inputs.
>
> The problem that I was trying to explain was that the currently 
> proposed alignment axiom 'ssn:observationResultTime rdfs:subPropertyOf 
> sosa:resultTime' is not in OWL2 DL as one is a DataTypeProperty and 
> the other one is an ObjectTypeProperty.
>
> The second case 'ssn:observationSamplingTime owl:equivalentProperty 
> sosa:phenomenonTime. ' is simple because both are object type 
> properties and equivalent anyway.
>
> I liked Raul's proposal (if I understood it correctly) to deprecate 
> observationResultTime and observationSamplingTime and then reuse the 
> sosa properties resultTime and phenomenonTime in ssn without the need 
> to do anything in addition.
>
> Best,
> Jano
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_in_SOSA_and_SSN
> On 03/28/2017 03:14 PM, Maxime Lefrançois wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> If I took the minutes correctly today, some of the properties whose 
>> URI contains string "time" are object properties and other are 
>> datatype properties, so that's not really consistent.
>>
>> It has been proposed to declare them as instances of rdf:Property 
>> instead of having to choose between ObjectProperty and DatatypeProperty.
>>
>> This could be interesting, these are the side effects I can think of now:
>> - we would need to assert these properties are instances of 
>> AnnotationProperty, else the ontology would not be OWL DL;
>> - no ontology that extends SSN can assert it's also a ObjectProperty 
>> or a DatatypeProperty;
>> - one cannot make this property be involved in a OWL logical axiom in 
>> any possible way, apart from rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and 
>> rdfs:subPropertyOf;
>> - still, people can create non-OWL rules ()e.g., SPARQL Construct or 
>> SPIN rules) that can generate new knowledge out of some pattern that 
>> involves this property.
>>
>> Best,
>> Maxime
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
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, 28 March 2017 23:15:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 March 2017 23:15:04 UTC