W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > April 2015

RE: SSN requirements

From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:24:46 +0000
To: <allaves@fi.upm.es>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3CD3C8BBF0D87B4D8154C3978732049C50E82024@exmbx06-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
Agreed. Those things are not explicitly addressed by ssn. Either SSN should be extended a little bit to do it, or alternatively we could simply recommend a way of doing it with ssn and give an example. I think the former is almost certainly better, at least where the necessary extension is small and the use case is in demand. We should consider ontology modularity here – separate a group of such concepts into a separate owl file to make it easier to ignore ( a little known revision of ssn has done this breaking up  for what is there already).


From: Alejandro Llaves [mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 April 2015 8:30 PM
To: Frans Knibbe
Cc: SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: SSN requirements

Hi Frans,

wrt 5.3 Georeferenced sensor data<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#GeoreferencedSensorData>, SSN does not specify which vocabulary to use, but it is possible to georeference sensor data and there are many examples out there, e.g. using GeoSPARQL.

Regarding the other requirements, 5.5 Mobile sensors<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MobileSensors>, 5.7 Moving features<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MovingFeatures>, and 5.8 Observation aggregations<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ObservationAggregations>, SSN does not meet them (AFAIK). However, the final SSN report<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn/> does not either explicitly say that sensors and features (FOIs) have to be static, nor that observations cannot be aggregated.

I would leave the analysis of which requirements are met by existing standards/recommendations (and which of them are not) for the corresponding SSN, Coverage, and Time deliverables. Let's see what the rest think...

Best regards,

On 28 April 2015 at 14:09, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> wrote:
Hello Alejandro,

About requirements 5.3<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#GeoreferencedSensorData>, 5.5<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MobileSensors>, 5.7<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#MovingFeatures> and 5.8<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ObservationAggregations> : Is it correct to assume that the current SSN vocabulary does not meet these requirements? Would it make sense to be explicit about that?


Frans Knibbe
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>

Alejandro Llaves

Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)

Artificial Intelligence Department

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Avda. Montepríncipe s/n

Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain


Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 12:25:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:16 UTC