- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:44:07 -0800
- To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <a89c9562-2e50-a795-b9e7-0931e9408e57@ucsb.edu>
Not sure, whether I am fully understanding this. > -ObservableProperty is a subclass of ssn:Property This would violate one of our design principles, namely that SOSA does not make use of SSN. On 02/06/2017 04:41 PM, Armin Haller wrote: > > It looks like we have a proposal here to resolve issue 87: > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/87 > > Please let me try to restate what was proposed: > > -ObservableProperty is introduced in SOSA (as is currently implemented > in: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl) > > -ObservableProperty is a subclass of ssn:Property > > -ObservableProperty is introduced in SSN as well and the subclass > relation to ssn:Property is stated within > > That leaves the door open to have another property in SSN (and) SOSA > concerned with ActuableProperties. > > This should also mean that SSN instances are SOSA instances, since no > axioms in SOSA are violated. > > Is my understanding correct? > > *From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr> > *Date: *Tuesday, 7 February 2017 at 10:14 am > *To: *"Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu" > <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, > "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Subject: *Re: Proposals (was Re: Architecture of SOSA/SSN > integration) : issue-87 only > *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, 7 February 2017 at 10:15 am > > Yes indeed, this is what I meant. Thanks. > > Le lun. 6 févr. 2017 à 23:50, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> a écrit : > > Øit appears very strange to me to state that a ssn:property is a > sub property of a sosa:ObservableProperty > > ØThis is what can be read at [1] > > Assuming you mean “it appears very strange to me to state that a > ssn:Property is a sub class of a sosa:ObservableProperty” then I > agree.That looks like my error. > > Simon > > *From:*Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>] > *Sent:* Monday, 6 February, 2017 17:55 > *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; Cox, Simon > (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: Proposals (was Re: Architecture of SOSA/SSN > integration) : issue-87 only > > 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 > > >>> more general, 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 Tuesday, 7 February 2017 00:44:43 UTC