Re: ssn ready for review

> 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. 

Thanks for your comments Raul. You are reading the sentence the other 
way around. What it is intended to state is that services that offer 
data based on SOSA alone and those that offer data based on the full SSN 
can exchange data on the level of SOSA, i.e., they can inter-operate on 
issues that involve observations and their results and so forth but not 
on the level of specific sensor capabilities or networks of sensors as 
those are defined in SSN but not SOSA. In fact, such core 
ontologies/patterns play a great role in acting as a minimal 
interoperability fallback level for multiple ontologies in that the 
involved parties merely need to agree on common patterns (and 
reoccurrence is the very nature of patterns) instead of entire ontologies.

Cheers,
Krzysztof


On 12/13/2016 01:08 PM, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> 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,
>


-- 
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

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 21:27:46 UTC