- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 03:30:22 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
I think that SOSA used the following modeling predicates in axioms - `rdfs:subClassOf` - but not using `owl:Restriction` - `rdfs:subPropertyOf` - `schema:domainIncludes` - `schema:rangeIncludes` while SSN also used - `rdfs:domain` - `rdfs:range` - `owl:Restriction` There were just a few classes in the SSN namespace - `ssn:Deployment` - `ssn:Input` - `ssn:Output` - `ssn:Property` - `ssn:Stimulus` - `ssn:System` IMAO these should all be brought into the SOSA namespace, for simplicity. (Note that I minted all the SSN-extensions in the SOSA namespace for this reason - T-box ontologies have few enough classes that it really isn't necessary to segment by namespace and generally leads to unnecessary confusion.) Its fine for the SSN graph to hold all the higher-order axioms, but not necessary for any classes and properties to be in the SSN namespace. AFACT the classes that @alexrobin has added are all in the SOSA namespace anyway. It would only be subClass/subProperty relations with SSN classes and properties that may cause confusion ... -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/1402#issuecomment-1512383603 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2023 03:30:24 UTC