- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:16:59 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Makx comment above that sensor data is not ubiquitous. The SSN Vocabulary anticipated that issue, and defines the term 'Observation' as > Act of carrying out an (Observation) Procedure to estimate or calculate a value of a property of a FeatureOfInterest. see https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSAObservation The definition of Sensor is similarly general: > Device, agent (including humans), or software (simulation) involved in, or implementing, a Procedure. see https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSASensor This means that there would be no inconsistency in using some terms from the SSN/SOSA vocabulary to describe some dataset aspects even when classic physical sensors are not involved. In particular the following might be useful - **hasFeatureOfInterest** https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSAhasFeatureOfInterest - **observedProperty** https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSAobservedProperty - **usedProcedure** https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSAusedProcedure - **madeBySensor** https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-ssn/#SOSAmadeBySensor There are no general domain/range constraints associated with these properties, so no entailment risks AFAICT. These SSN/SOSA properties would likely match DCAT's goal of providing a 'basic framework for describing datasets' - useful for discovery, though well short of the details needed for actual use, which is the spot that QB aims for. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/60#issuecomment-373525760 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2018 21:17:02 UTC