Re: SSN requirements

Hello Alejandro,

Ok, we could put this on a to do list. Do we have one? If not, we could
make a new file in Github, or use the tracker.

Regards,
Frans

2015-05-29 12:15 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:

> Yes, this is a good idea. Yet, I would prioritize to have the complete and
> refined list of SSN (plus the other deliverables' reqs.) by next telecon,
> vote for the FPWD, and then start thinking about the relations between SSN
> reqs. and Best Practice deliverable. Does this make sense?
>
> Regards,
> Alejandro
>
> On 28 May 2015 at 18:34, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
>> Hello Alejandro, Kerry,
>>
>> (Please excuse me for responding to a not so recent thread)
>>
>> There are several requirements for the SSN deliverable. There seems to
>> be agreement that we won't go into the specifics of whether the current
>> SSN vocabulary adequately addresses those requirements. But wouldn't it
>> be a good idea to relate these requirements to the Best Practices
>> deliverable too? In theory, the SSN developers could decide not to
>> support a requirement in SSN because it would be out of scope for SSN -
>> a clash with the noble design principles of modularity and separation of
>> concerns. In that case we would have a requirement that can not be met. If
>> such a requirement would be in the sights of the BP deliverable, then
>> the BP deliverable could still recommend a way of meeting the
>> requirement - perhaps using SSN plus some other things.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Frans
>>
>> 2015-04-29 14:24 GMT+02:00 <Kerry.Taylor@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).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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,
>>>
>>> Alejandro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 April 2015 at 14:09, Frans Knibbe <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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Frans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Frans Knibbe
>>>
>>> Geodan
>>>
>>> President Kennedylaan 1
>>>
>>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>>>
>>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>>>
>>> www.geodan.nl
>>>
>>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Alejandro Llaves
>>>
>>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>>>
>>> Artificial Intelligence Department
>>>
>>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>>
>>> Avda. Montepríncipe s/n
>>>
>>> Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> allaves@fi.upm.es
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Frans Knibbe
>> Geodan
>> President Kennedylaan 1
>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>>
>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>> www.geodan.nl
>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alejandro Llaves
>
> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>
> Artificial Intelligence Department
>
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>
> Avda. Montepríncipe s/n
>
> Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain
>
>
> http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves
>
>
> allaves@fi.upm.es
>



-- 
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
www.geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>