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

Re: ssn ready for review

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:08:06 +0100
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3acad94d-acfc-7251-3b1b-3dcc2977dcd8@fi.upm.es>
El 12/12/16 a las 14:06, Kerry Taylor escribió:
> To the best of my knowledge ssn is now stable and awaits your review
> prior to the vote to publish a fresh working draft  at the F2F.  In the
> last few days there
> Has been work on tidying up issue-105 and the changes section (myself) ,
> extending the section on modularity and sosa by Krzysztof, and the
> automated description of sosa together with relevant issue documentation
> by Armin.
> Please have a look!
> -Kerry

Dear all,

Here you have some comments on the current SSN Editor's Draft.

The two paragraphs before figure 1 seem to be a bit out of scope for the 
specification and may be a bit confusing for the intended audience of 
the document. The discussion about decidability for modules seems too 
much when we are just using owl:import, and some statements are not 
quite understandable (e.g., "concepts in the ontology module that 
inherit object properties", what is a "concept" in OWL and how can it 
inherit a property?).

Besides, now we just have vertical segmentation. Why not removing that 
header since we are mainly owl:import-ing modules?

In figure 1, some of the owl:imports relationships that appear in the 
figure are redundant and add confusion to the figure. If SSN-O&M imports 
SSN and SSN already imports SOSA, there is no need for SSN-O&M to import 
SOSA. If DUL-A imports SSN-O&M and SSN-O&M already imports SSN, there is 
no need for DUL-A to import SSN. Without the redundant relationships, we 
have a simple layered view on the modules.

The document in its current state really needs figures. I volunteer to 
provide some figures of the different ontology modules similar to the 
ones I made for the old SSN.

Section 4 (The SSN ontology) is not stated to be normative or not; I 
suppose that it is normative. Then, it is very strange that the standard 
ontology imports another non-normative ontology. Either SOSA is 
normative or we have to reconsider the relationship between both.

Besides, if SOSA is the core module of the ontology, it should be 
presented first.

I don't agree with this statement in section 5.1: "SOSA defines those 
classes and properties for which data that can be safely exchanged 
across all uses of the SSN". If SOSA does not cover the whole SSN 
ontology, it cannot ensure interoperability at that level.

The SSN-O&M Alignment module is not explained in the document. We would 
need at least a placeholder for it wouldn't we?

Kind regards,


Dr. Raúl García Castro

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 21:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:45 UTC