RE: SSN -- publishing dolce alignment separately

Yes, the stability question has been raised as a consideration and  does condition some of our options.  I have taken an action to look into it (ACTION-210)

--Kerry



From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2016 3:30 AM
To: Ghislain Atemezing-Pro <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SSN -- publishing dolce alignment separately

Keep in mind that the work original known as DUL has moved in other directions (namely patterns). To the best of my recollection, DUL has not been maintained since 2010 or 2011 and there is (to the best of my knowledge) no governance structure in place. This broke the original SSN at some point (the URL went offline). If we want to have an official DUL alignment in whatever form, we should make sure we understand the issues and ontological commitments that come with it. What are the advantages of having a DUL alignment in the SSN domain?

Best,
Krzysztof

P.s. Btw, since about 3-4 weeks, we started to go in circles and revisit issues we discussed in March.


On 10/12/2016 01:01 AM, Ghislain Atemezing-Pro wrote:
Hi all,
+1 for having such alignments published separately but in the same domain of SSN

Best,
Ghislain

Le mer. 12 oct. 2016 à 00:40, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> a écrit :
Reposting discussion on status of dolce alignment to the list as it came up in ssn meeting today. Since then, and under Armin's table presented today, another option would be to have the dolce alignment (and other alignments) published as non-normative in the rec-track/standard.
-Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Simmons [mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org<mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2016 10:21 PM
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>; Spatial Data on the Web Working Group <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: SSN -- publishing dolce alignment separately

Kerry,

Resending the content from my other response to you on this topic for the consumption of the WG.

"In OGC, a few options are possible. If the SSN work is to become an OGC standard, then DUL could be published as an extension (full weight of a standard, but optional component), a Best Practice, or a Discussion Paper. If SSN is to be a Best Practice, then it is most appropriate to make DUL a Discussion Paper.”

Best Regards,
Scott

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 3:54 AM, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> wrote:
>
>> Let me check I've understood you correctly.
> Almost, but  certainly close enough for the answer to be what we are looking for. Thank you.
>
> To correct, DUL is itself nothing to do with us. In the old "SSN" you could not use SSN without getting DUL into the bargain (via import and alignment axioms). Now we want to publish SSN minus DUL and minus alignment as the standard, but also separately publish the alignment ( probably still  importing DUL) as something weaker.
>
> That is (new) SSN as "Rec" and the (new, separated, as yet unnamed but in the namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/dul/) alignment ontology  as "Note inW3C parlance".
>
> Furthermore, I would be surprised if we did not want to pack other stuff into that Note as well (or separate Notes?) that correspond to other optional extras around SSN.
>
> @Scott, how does this sit with you and OGC?
> --Kerry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>]
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2016 5:23 PM
> To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org<mailto:ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>>
> Cc: Spatial Data on the Web Working Group <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: SSN -- publishing dolce alignment separately
>
> It depends (of course).
>
> Let me check I've understood you correctly. SSN should be a standard, complete with implementation experience. DUL is an optional extension that you don't want to put through the full standardisation process but you need it to be published in a stable, persistent, citable form.
>
> That would be a Rec and a Note in W3C parlance.
>
> The W3C documents will almost certainly have short URIs of https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/ https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dul/

>
> And the namespace files are already in place of course at http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/ http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/dul/

>
> HTH
>
> Phil.
>
> On 20/04/2016 01:19, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>> The SSN subgroup decided this morning that there are things (most particularly at this point, the DUL alignment) that we would like to publish *with* ssn but clearly not part of the "recommendation/standard".  Can you please advise us of the appropriate mechanism for this?
>>
>> In particular with DUL, which was "built-in" to the orginal ssn we have disentangled it to make it "optional" and we prefer that part of (the previous) ssn does not carry the weight or obligations of a standard.
>>
>> --Kerry
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

>
> http://philarcher.org

> +44 (0)7887 767755<tel:+44%207887%20767755>
> @philarcher1
--
--------------------------------------------
Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
R&D Engineer
@ Mondeca, Paris, France
Labs: http://labs.mondeca.com

Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034
Web: www.mondeca.com<http://www.mondeca.com>
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me: http://atemezing.org





--

Krzysztof Janowicz



Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara

4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060



Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/


Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net