- 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. -Kerry 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