RE: ssn ready for review

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

I've just added placeholder sections for both SSN/SOSA --> PROV-O 
and SSN/SOSA --> O&M in a branch, and made a pull-request for the editors. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Raúl García Castro [mailto:rgarcia@fi.upm.es] 
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2016 08:08
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ssn ready for review

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
http://www.garcia-castro.com/

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 22:21:47 UTC