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

Re: ssn ready for review

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:49:42 -0800
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <78a25591-2f7c-24ea-53d5-034f5a7a91fa@ucsb.edu>
> 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. 

You are absolutely right. I have written this a bit in a hurry and will 
polish the text more. Thanks again for your feedback.

Best,
Krzysztof



On 12/13/2016 10:45 PM, Raúl García Castro wrote:
> 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,
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
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 Wednesday, 14 December 2016 06:50:16 UTC

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