- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:38:08 -0800
- To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <84cdd9fe-e59a-5c29-11c4-46c923f50d22@ucsb.edu>
> - we also consider either to add sosa:ActuableProperty, or roll back > to just sosa:Property. This assumes that all of them are of equal importance which is unlikely to be the case, e.g., for ActuableProperty, and also that the ontology has to have an equal depth across the covered domain which is also not necessarily the case. In fact, almost all otologies are very unbalanced in that they cover one aspect in more detail than another. SSN, for instance, is one such example. Best, Krzysztof On 02/05/2017 10:54 PM, Maxime Lefrançois wrote: > >> ØAnd it appears very strange to me to state that an observable >> property is a sub property of a property. > > That was a slip of the tongue, I meant: > >> it appears very strange to me to state that a ssn:property is a sub >> property of a sosa:ObservableProperty > This is what can be read at [1] and is also what I would model when > Phil says: > > >>> Looking at the two definitions, there are differences but they look > > >>> very minor to my eyes with sosa:ObservableProperty looking > slightly > > >>>moregeneral, so, again, I'd delete ssn:Property. > > > [1] - https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/ssn-sosa.ttl > > but anyways, +1 in favour of your arguments, and I propose that: > > - we update sosa-ssn.ttl to reflect what we all agree on; > - we also consider either to add sosa:ActuableProperty, or roll back > to just sosa:Property. > > Kind regards, > Maxime > >> Not strange actually – not all properties are observable. In the >> revision of ISO 19109:2015 we distinguished between >> >> -Observation >> >> -Assertion (e.g. name, price) >> >> -Derivation (e.g. classifications based on combinations of >> observed properties) >> >> -Inheritance/instantiation (e.g. where a property value is >> assumed on the basis of class membership) >> >> These are not necessarily disjoint, and it is likely that >> observable properties are the most interesting (depending on you >> epistemological viewpoint) but it is useful to recognize that >> observable properties are a distinct class. > > Yes, not strange at all. I agree with all of Simon's arguments and > we also made them in one of our telco's half a year ago. > > > > On 02/05/2017 04:57 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: >> >> ØAnd it appears very strange to me to state that an observable >> property is a sub property of a property. >> >> Not strange actually – not all properties are observable. In the >> revision of ISO 19109:2015 we distinguished between >> >> -Observation >> >> -Assertion (e.g. name, price) >> >> -Derivation (e.g. classifications based on combinations of >> observed properties) >> >> -Inheritance/instantiation (e.g. where a property value is >> assumed on the basis of class membership) >> >> These are not necessarily disjoint, and it is likely that >> observable properties are the most interesting (depending on you >> epistemological viewpoint) but it is useful to recognize that >> observable properties are a distinct class. >> >> Simon >> >> *From:*Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr] >> *Sent:* Monday, 6 February, 2017 00:22 >> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> >> <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; SDW WG Public List >> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: Proposals (was Re: Architecture of SOSA/SSN >> integration) : issue-87 only >> >> +1 for Kerry's arguments. >> >> And it appears very strange to me to state that an observable >> property is a sub property of a property. >> >> I just changed to sosa:Property instead of >> sosa:ObservableProperty in the proposal I am currently working on. >> >> + add relations and classes that are missing >> >> best, >> >> Maximle >> >> Le dim. 5 févr. 2017 à 13:44, Kerry Taylor >> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> a écrit : >> >> PhilA has said >> >> >>> Looking at the two definitions, there are differences but >> they look >> >> >>> very minor to my eyes with sosa:ObservableProperty >> looking slightly >> >> >>> more general, so, again, I'd delete ssn:Property. >> >> This is issue-87. As you can see by my analysis last November >> in the tracker https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/87 , >> >> (1). A sosa: Observable Property is NOT an O&M property. The >> O&M standard has no such term. >> >> (2) The ssn:Property has the same intended meaning as an an >> O&M Property (and, yes it is an O&M “Property”) and this is >> explicit by the annotation within ssn “<dc:source> skos:exactMatch 'property' [O&M]http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/om </dc:source>” >> >> >> >> (3) What is shown in the mapping table is not the complete >> annotation for ssn:Property – just an extract. However that >> very paragraph deserves improvement. >> >> (4) ssn:Property is used in other places throughout ssn that >> have nothing to do with the narrow context associated with >> Observation as it is used in SOSA. >> >> In particular, nothing to do with a >> >> (5) ssn:Property cannot be deleted --- many, many things will >> break. Nor can it be replaced by sosa:ObservableProperty >> (see 4). Maybe it is possible to say sosa:Property >> rdfs:SubclassOf ssn:Property but this has its problems too >> (ssn instances would not be sosa instances). A more >> sophisticated workaround is required if we head that direction. >> >> (6) ssn users know it as “Property” . So do O&M users. Why >> change, who are we serving? >> >> (6) OTOH a simple name change in sosa to “Property” and some >> clarification on the rdfs:comments in both places would work >> – and then ssn and sosa can use the very same term. This is >> the essence of my proposal on the wiki as a pattern to solve >> all these many problems. >> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017 >> >> In this case the rdfs:comment suggested by Armin looks very >> close but I prefer abbreviated as follows (due to (4) ) “An >> observable quality of a real world phenomena (thing, person, >> event, etc.) “ or here is another idea that I propose “An >> observable quality of a real world phenomena (object, >> person, or event), typically a FeatureOfInterest” . That >> works well in the context for my proposal that also shows >> how to use it in the simple core. >> >> -Kerry >> >> Dr Kerry Taylor >> >> Associate Professor (Data Science) >> >> Research School of Computer Science >> >> ANU College of Engineering and Computer Science >> >> Canberra ACT 2601 Australia >> >> +61 2 6125 8560 <tel:+61%202%206125%208560> >> > > > -- > 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/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/> > Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net > -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Monday, 6 February 2017 19:38:44 UTC