Re: The SSN requirement 'Reference external vocabularies'

2015-10-07 14:56 GMT+02:00 Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>:

> [...]
>
> Frans, I  interpreted the externally managed controlled vocabs use case as
> something entirely different to this. I thought it meant using something
> like skos -defined terms( ie individuals) in some places. That may be my
> error, but if it is meant to refer to the idea of being used together
> linking to another ontology( which is surely just totally normal practice)
> then  I think it would need some rewording.
>

Hi Kerry,

Could you please give an example of the way you interpret this requirement,
or point to use cases that describe the requirement in the way you
understand it?

Regards,
Frans




>
> Kerry
>
> On 7 Oct 2015, at 9:52 pm, Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> +1. Sorting out how to encode units of measure would be very useful. There
> are a few relevant things out there, but I haven’t seen anything that looks
> to me like the “last word” on the subject.
>
> Jon
>
> On 6 Oct 2015, at 12:59, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
> wrote:
>
> Frans,
>
> Yes, I the that would be a good reminder of our goal. A vocabulary for
> units might not be all explicitly "spatial" but at least the length, area,
> volume, etc. units are needed for expressing spatiality of data.
>
> Josh
>
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 05:40, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2015-06-05 19:07 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
> :
>
>> We have had some discussion of linking and referencing vocabularies at
>> this week’s OGC TC meeting. My sense is that the requirement is both
>> important and spatial. First of all, we are talking about requirements for
>> construction of a spatial vocabulary (SSN) so how we go about it is a a
>> reasonable concern. Beyond this, however, there is need for specific types
>> of references to external vocabularies in order to present a complete
>> spatiotemporal sensing theory without doing too much re-invention. There
>> are conflicting theories in involved in many upper ontologies from which
>> SSN and other spatial ontologies might derive, so choice of inheritance is
>> a concern. Definition of mapping relationships rather than inheritance
>> might be more appropriate.
>>
>> Then are there many choices of external vocabularies for other aspects of
>> sensing, such as units, CRS’s, phenomena, etc. There is danger of
>> brittleness in making hard references to specific vocabularies that play
>> these roles, but they are needed for a complete theory. What seems as if it
>> might be more resilient is to be able to create logically consistent stubs
>> or placeholders that define the role an external vocabulary will play in a
>> specification such as SSN without making the vocabulary dependent on a
>> specific vocabulary. To the extent that such vocabularies need to be
>> consistent with SSN theory, the construction of such reference objects is
>> explicitly spatial.
>>
>
> Josh,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts. Am I right in understanding that you are
> saying that SSN should not be a closed model with regard to spatial
> information? Is this a known weakness in the current SSN?
>
> Perhaps it would help if we make the spatial angle more clear in the
> requirment, for example change
>  "It should be possible to refer to externally-managed controlled
> vocabularies."
> to
>  "It should be possible to refer to externally-managed controlled
> vocabularies for expressing spatial data."
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -Josh
>>
>> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
>> Principal
>> Tumbling Walls
>> jlieberman*tumblingwalls.com
>> +1 617 431 6431
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The tracker does not yet send notifications of new issues to this list,
>> so this is a manual notification that I have created ISSUE-20
>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>.
>>
>> This thread can be used to discuss the issue.
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Frans
>>
>> --
>> Frans Knibbe
>> Geodan
>> President Kennedylaan 1
>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>>
>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>> www.geodan.nl
>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>
>>
>>
>
>