Re: ISSUE-87: why is sosa-core:observable property renamed

> Concerning the name: the issue here is that not all properties are 
> amenable to estimation through sensing, etc.
>
> Some feature properties (like ‘name’ or ‘owner’) are typically 
> asserted or recorded in some register, and you don’t obtain these by a 
> process of observation.

Yes, this is why we have the relation 'ObservedProperty'. If we would 
just say 'Property', it would also collide with almost everything else 
and we would not be able to use out domainincludes and rangeincludes 
properties. Is is also considered bad practice in ontology engineering 
to have high-level catch all classes and properties. Calling a property, 
i.e., a predicate, role, etc, 'property' does not restrict it to our use 
cases, namely those properties that can be observed by some sensor and 
that are inherent in some feature of interest.

Best,
Jano



On 12/04/2016 02:58 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Hi Kerry –
>
> I agree with your overall analysis. Observable-properties are just a 
> kind of quality.
>
> The issue in the context of SOSA here is whether SOSA mentions the 
> superclasses (dul:Quality, GF_PropertyType etc) or do we just include 
> narrower classes here, and assert the fact that they are subclasses of 
> something else in an alignment graph.
>
> There is a related consideration for FeatureOfInterest vs just Feature 
> or even just rdf:Resource.
>
> I had the impression that we were consciously using the more narrowly 
> defined classes in SOSA, but recognize that there will be alignment to 
> the more general cases outside the core.
>
> Concerning the name: the issue here is that not all properties are 
> amenable to estimation through sensing, etc.
>
> Some feature properties (like ‘name’ or ‘owner’) are typically 
> asserted or recorded in some register, and you don’t obtain these by a 
> process of observation.
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 November, 2016 00:19
> *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: [sdw] ssn meeting this week
>
> As requested (bit too late –sorry) I have  split issue-86 into two 
> parts. The first part is about annotations and led to item 3 on this 
> agenda here and remains as  issue-86; the second part is the issue 
> addressed in item 4 here and is has moved out of issue-86 to become 
> now issue-94
>
> *From:*Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 November 2016 10:21 PM
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [sdw] ssn meetiArmin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>ng this week
>
>
>   Agenda for SSN-focused meeting 29 November 2016 21:00 UTC
>   <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20161129T21&ah=1&msg=SSN%20Call>
>
>  1. Assigning tasks on the writing of the WD
>     http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ for December 16th deadline
>  2. Decision on removing someValues from restriction on hasSubSystem
>     ISSUE 85 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85>
>  3. Annotations in mapping table
>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
>  4. Remove featureOfInterest Class? i.e., second part of Issue ISSUE
>     86 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86> and
>     observableProperty?, i.e. second part of ISSUE 87
>     <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/87>
>
> Further details and dial in instructions: 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20161129
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Armin
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net