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: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:45:44 +0100
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <070d2aa4-fbc3-4e9b-8bf7-342fd0d76ad5@fi.upm.es>
El 13/12/16 a las 22:27, Krzysztof Janowicz escribió:
>> 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.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I get it.

However, if the paragraph has been misunderstood by one person (me), it 
could be by others. I would suggest to rewrite that part along the lines 
stated in your explanation.

Kind regards,

> 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,
>>
>
>


-- 

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 Wednesday, 14 December 2016 06:46:15 UTC

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