Re: A constructive and productive path forward for SSN/SOSA

+1! (although a factorial of 1 is not all that exciting)
Scott

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:39 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I believe that there are a few important issues we need to clarify.
> 
> Let me begin with a very brief history of SOSA; I will need it for my argumentation later on. I proposed a vertical and horizontal modularization of the SSN with a small and lightweight core at it's center. You can find the proposal here https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN. I then proposed a first axiomatization. Namely here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules. It merely consists of 6 classes and 6 properties. Armin (and Simon) took this approach and implemented the first SANDA version. Simon moved this to SOSA (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology) and provided evidence that the modularization proposed above is indeed feasible and that other common sensor/observation work can be aligned. Since then we have moved SOSA forward on Github documenting and discussing each and every step. These ideas and files have been around for weeks, they don't just popped out of the blue.
> 
> The different sosa-om, sosa-sam, and so forth files that you can find on Github are (outdated) outlines to demonstrate the modularization. This was (and is) a very important step towards making progress. In *no* way it implies that those files are part of SOSA-core nor that they will be part of the SSN without all of us agreeing on them. The very same is true for concepts such as Activity, Sensing, Platform, and so forth that are now in the SOSA-core file. The very idea of using *Git* is to enable us to work in individual branches and to test our ideas and the results of our discussions *frequently*. Just like for sosa-om and other files and graphs (https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology), we implement and upload them because they are the *results* of our discussions (on the mailinglist) and thoughts. Without somebody doing the work of actually *formalizing* what we discussed, we would not be in the position to take any decisions! I am surprised and disappointed to see Simon being attacked for doing this and can only believe that this is due to some sort of misunderstanding. If we discuss issues and everybody ends up being too afraid to implement this into actual code, we will get absolutely nowhere.
> 
> Please be respectful of other people's work and constructive in your criticisms. I fully understand that we are in the middle of the summer and reading all those mails and code and reacting to them is difficult. However, the consequence cannot be to suddenly jump onto something you disagree with without following the discussion and without asking for clarification first. If you have different opinions and ideas, please bring them forward and please introduce your own branch on Github that allows everybody to review your proposal. Other people's branches are *invitations* for discussions, not an approach to get something standardized without your consent. This will require following the changes on Github (yes, it will) as this is the tool we agreed to use. Please lets also not jump on every unpolished aspect of an ontology that is in it's early development purely for the sake of calling things /broken/.
> 
> The sole reason for having SOSA in gh-pages is to ensure that there is something like a master branch that people can easily follow without having to visit the multiple branches that have been created so far. Again, this does in no way imply that some decision was taken and that things are set in stone.
> 
> The very idea of an *unchanged* or merely slightly changed SSN seems like something out of a feverish dream to me. This is the first joint working group of the W3C and the OGC. How can we approach OGC later on and tell them that the synthesis of all the work done on this and related topics from both sides is simply going to be the current (W3C) SSN? If this is the case, why invite OGC at all? More importantly, there are issues with the SSN and issues with O&M and other approaches. This is our chance to fix them!
> 
> I would propose that we continue our work on SOSA-core and explore in a constructive and productive setting what should be part of the core and what not. Classes and relations that will not remain part of core are not lost, they can be used in other modules.  Let us be free to play around with ideas and to implement them and upload them as often as possible so that we have *informed* discussions/decisions. If people always end up having to defend themselves for actually doing some work, they will stop contributing. Testing ideas is not implying that they will end up in the final version.
> 
> I do realize that there are many unsolved problems and many important questions we have to clarify, but let us make sure that they do not stop us from taking small steps one at a time. Lets make sure we finish a first SOSA-core draft within the next few weeks and then dive into all the potential issues that may arise some way down the road.
> 
> Finally, lets measure our success by whether we will see billions of observations posted on the Web using SSN/SOSA 5 years from now, not based on who had which idea (first).
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Krzysztof
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 12:21:08 UTC