W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2016

RE: [w3c/sdw] SSN / SOSA / Activity Hierarchy (#309)

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 01:02:38 +0000
To: w3c/sdw <reply+00fcd29dd6635b4ecdb238ff61596442a31dcf8bf6bb1e8f92cf0000000113b8993092a16>, w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
CC: Comment <comment@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <PS1PR06MB1740772F8A6CAE7B0277BFDEA4060@PS1PR06MB1740.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
I wonder whether these “circles” could be circumscribed by some clear statements about what a “core” is supposed to be? I, for one, admit to being confused about this (as I have said before).

Here’s a (partially inconsistent)  strawman :

The SSN core comprises (conjunctively):
                -1 A vocabulary that is expressed  in rdf/rdfs but is also in OWL-DL
                -2 A vocabulary that comprises only terms for IoT applications observing data from low energy, low memory devices
                - 3 A vocabulary that eschews rdfs:domain and rdfs:range and rdfs:subClassOf
                - 4 A vocabulary that is aligned with the other deliverables of the SDW
-5  A vocabulary that comprises only terms (properties and classes)  that are essential, i.e. every use case (of the SDW UCR) would need to use all of the terms
- 6 A vocabulary that is contained in one file and does not owl:import

And given that (as I understand the intention, quite possibly incorrectly at this time ) the “core”  is strongly tied to the “modularisation” goal, perhaps a top-down approach might  work better – ie start with ssn and pull it apart (and recall we already have a proposal on the table for that we can work from –see charter) .

I am afraid that I have been unable to contribute much to this progress to date (other masters) but I plan to go back to ssn and have a go at a top-down approach before the F2F (and making corrections as I have observed to the version of the FPWD, following, to the extent  it seems workable,  the vertical/horizontal modularisation style https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Proposal_5_made_by_KJanowicz . I am not certain what a “core” would look like following this approach, but I am certain it would not meet 2 above as it would be missing some things:  Actuation, for example.


From: kjano [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016 3:24 AM
To: w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com>
Subject: Re: [w3c/sdw] SSN / SOSA / Activity Hierarchy (#309)

We are running in circles. I will open a new issue for this.

You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/309#issuecomment-236977253>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APzSnYlDnSGRsQqdvuTKN7B2akYSdOhBks5qb30wgaJpZM4JVlJq>.
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 01:03:24 UTC

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