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

RE: ssn ready for review

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 09:56:52 +0000
To: <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <542acd157d0b443481cbbe898fbac48c@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
I've just added some initial alignments from SOSA to 
(i) PROV-O and 
(ii) O&M 

Into the RDF directory, and copied the basic mappings into the document. 

I committed them to a branch, and made a pull-request. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2016 12:14
To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ssn ready for review

> Logically maybe, but the document itself is called the Semantic Sensor Network ontology. Not sure what the policy is in the W3C. Phil again?

I think this really should not be a problem. It is just a question of whether we talk first about the core (SOSA) and then about what comes on top of it (the rest of the SSN) or the other way around. After all, SOSA is part of SSN same as SSO was before. As we expect the core to have a larger user base, having it first may make sense. I am okay with both approaches.

Jano


On 12/13/2016 05:07 PM, Armin Haller wrote:
> Raúl, thanks for your detailed comments!
>
>>    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.
>   
> Agree, this needs some rewrite, but the problem here was that as you rightly pointed out, we have no horizontal integration anymore at the moment. But I am not entirely sure if that will be the case in the final document. There is for example the coverage ontology and the time ontology we may need and want to horizontally layer.
>     
>>     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.
> Fantastic! I have made some initial visualisation with CMap too, but until the ontologies are more stable, it is a bit of a waste of time. Thanks for volunteering for the next version, very much appreciated!
>      
>>     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.
> I was a bit unsure about that, as agreed SOSA and SSN and the Dulce alignment are normative, but it was all set as non-normative in the earlier document. I assumed that it is all non-normative because it is a Working Draft. Phil can you clarify?
>
>>     Besides, if SOSA is the core module of the ontology, it should be
>>     presented first.
> Logically maybe, but the document itself is called the Semantic Sensor Network ontology. Not sure what the policy is in the W3C. Phil again?
>


-- 
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 09:58:15 UTC

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