[esip-semantictech] Fwd: FW: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data

[brandon whitehead]

​Hi all,

There's a relevant conversation going on with the W3C SDW-WG (spatial data
working group) about (essentially) what terminology should be used.  SWEET
was brought up as it contains many terms, and potentially relevant
structure, fit for re-use within that community.  The most recent email
(below) from Simon Cox illustrates some of the issues with SWEET as it
currently sits.

There is some really, really, good `stuff' in SWEET; there's also some
content that is, in its most positive light, debateable.  I think this is a
topic worth re-visiting.  Could SWEET be re-organised?  Would it be better
served as a series of Ontology Patterns?   (Yes, it is already broken out
by `domain'; I'm thinking of a finer level of separation/granularity -
perhaps `levels of assertion' or something along those lines would be
appropriate. )

I think this particular community is equiped, and positioned, to perhaps
make some worth while progress.   Would anyone else be interested in
participating in a Birds-of-a-feather type session at the ESIP Summer
Meeting focusing on SWEET, its current status/content, positive aspects,
negative aspects, etc.; i.e. a SWEET Working Group?   I realise this isn't
a new topic; but it may well be worth re-visiting.

Thoughts?

cheers,
/brandon​



*From:* Simon.Cox at csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au]
*Sent:* 04 April 2016 06:28
*To:* lewismc at apache.org; public-sdw-wg at w3.org
*Subject:* RE: Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data



Hi Lewis –



Since you have raised SWEET, it is perhaps worth noting a few ways in which
it does not meet the expectations of the linked data community:



(i)                 Every concept (class or property) defined in SWEET is
denoted with a http URI, but **these do not resolve** using HTTP. The main
way to use SWEET is to download the files, which are available, but huge
and take a long time to download;

(ii)               The same concept has a **different URI in different
versions** of SWEET. In particular the URIs have the SWEET version number
in them. The URIs also reflect the factoring between modules, which changes
between versions. There is also no tracking back from later versions to
older versions, so there is no way to automatically detect semantic
equivalence between versions;

(iii)             There is almost **no documentation** – no rdfs:label,
dc:description, rdfs:comment etc and also no rdfs:seeAlso, skos:closeMatch,
rdfs:isDefinedBy etc. So all you have to go by is the name and position in
the subsumption hierarchy.



This is a shame, because SWEET is a well thought-out, well-structured
resource, but falls short in these few ways. I have raised these issues
with Thomas Huang (JPL) who I think is the current maintainer, but haven’t
had any impact yet L



Simon



*From:* lewis john mcgibbney [mailto:lewismc at apache.org <lewismc at apache.org>]

*Sent:* Wednesday, 30 March 2016 6:32 PM
*To:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg at w3.org>
*Subject:* Add Sweet Ontology to SDWBP 6.2 Expressing Spatial Data



Hi Folks,
I would like to propose the addition of the spatially-relevant portions of
the Semantic Web for Earth and Environmental Terminology (SWEET) [0]
ontology which was authored @JPL.
SWEET was developed with the aim of better locating NASA Earth science data
with it containing mutual relationships of scientific concepts and their
ancillary space, time, and environmental descriptors. There are a number of
spatial components which I would be happy to expand upon if required.

Thank you for any feedback.

Lewis


[0] http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20160404/87a58603/attachment.html>