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

Hi,

Yes, my proposal was to reuse the sosa properties in ssn. However, I 
still see the need for consistently reusing the time ontology (also 
standardised in this same group) in all the temporal properties and 
declaring all of them as object properties.

I see no significant hurdle in stating
   :Obs293 sosa:resultTime [time:inXSDDateTime "2002-10-10T12:00:00"]
instead of
   :Obs293 sosa:resultTime "2002-10-10T12:00:00"

And allows practitioners (or people reusing their data) to exploit the 
representational capabilities of the time ontology and further describe 
the time instant (e.g., stating that it is inside a time interval or 
defining the instant with a greater granularity with the 
DateTimeDescription class).

In summary, when we take a decision on this, I'd like to see an option 
that goes along this line.

Kind regards,

El 29/3/17 a las 0:23, Krzysztof Janowicz escribió:
> 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
>


-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://www.garcia-castro.com/

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2017 05:58:32 UTC