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

RE: ssn ready for review

From: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:57:55 +0000
To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <KL1PR0601MB1431FC5F0D1BF4E0EE6C3728A49D0@KL1PR0601MB1431.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com>
I agree with the confusion -- although I was able to figure it out only because I knew what SOSA does. 

I will take an action to rephrase, unless jano does it first.
-Kerry


-----Original Message-----
From: Raúl García Castro [mailto:rgarcia@fi.upm.es] 
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2016 5:46 PM
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ssn ready for review

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 Thursday, 15 December 2016 07:58:40 UTC

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