Dear all,
As a follow up to today's call, I created a simple figure that shows the
old and current links between classes: FeatureOfInterest, xxxProperty,
{Actuator/Sensor}, {Actuation/Observation}, as of 2017-03-08,
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/File:20170308-foi-property-object-event.png
I also produced another figure that illustrates an option where:
1. naming is consistent between the ACT part and the SENSE part
2. one can guess the name of the link between {Actuator, Actuation,
Sensor, Observation} to xxxProperty by simply adding the string "Property"
somewhere in the name of the link between {Actuator, Actuation, Sensor,
Observation} to FeatureOfInterest
3. we rely on present or past to differentiate what is "potential" (i.e.,
links Actuator or Sensor), versus what is "done" (i.e., links {Actuation,
Actuator}).
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/File:20170308-foi-property-object-event-maxime-would-be-happy-with.png
As you will understand, I am not 100% happy with this option neither:
- it uses "observes" as the name of the link between Sensor and
FeatureOfInterest, while in the old SSN the link "observes" was between a
Sensor and a Property
- it would imply that we reconsider the vote at
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Link_between_Actuation_and_Actuator
If anyone has a different proposal for the names, you can create a new
option with the same "great style" using the pptx at the following URL:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/images/4/40/Foi-property-object-event.pptx
Also, now that we have a figure to evaluate all the links between classes
FeatureOfInterest, xxxProperty, {Actuator/Sensor}, {Actuation/Observation},
it's clear to track the current progress of sosa/ssn, and identify the
possible naming inconsistencies.
On the other hand, I absolutely don't have a clue on the best way to
proceed to choose as a group each one of the names for the links as quickly
as possible. If anyone has an idea about this, I'd be pleased to hear it.
Kind regards,
Maxime
