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

SSN/O&M RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:25:57 +0000
To: <phila@w3.org>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A6035E1D9@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>       [23] http://www.slideshare.net/drshorthair/ontology-alignment-is-provo-good-enough 
>
>    kerry: a SSN alignment with PROV-O is publised a while ago

The presentation linked above used the PROV-O alignment that you were co-author on Kerry, and re-iterates one of the key conclusions of that paper, which is that SSN was missing a class (ssn-x:ActivityOfSensing) to complete the alignment with a process-model view (such as O&M). 
The om-lite ontology paper also speaks to this. 

>    ... I don't see where DOLCE and PROV-O are alternatives

DOLCE and PROV-O are not alternatives. But observation-making has a workflow or process-model flavour to it which was somewhat lost by using DOLCE as the upper ontology. OTOH that flavour is much more obvious in PROV-O, in which the fundamental distinction is between the disjoint classes Activity and Entity. So my argument in the presentation linked above was that PROV-O provides a more natural alignment framework than DOLCE. Dolce is also rather elaborate and confusing to outsiders. 

N.B. Activity vs Entity also mirrors the fundamental distinction drawn in BFO (Occurrent vs Continuant).

>     <phila> PROPOSED: for modularisation we work with michael's
    proposal (but remove dul and replace with native appropriately)
    and serve it using /uris and redirects as suggested by Armin

>     <trackbot> action-140 -- Armin Haller to Clearly separate
    observation, sensor, and deployment parts of ssn -- due
    2016-02-16 -- OPEN

Relating to this, not sure if y'all noticed my suggestion at the bottom of my posting on Friday. I pointed out that for modularization we could also consider the concern that is reflected in the OGC's modularization - sensor descriptions (SensorML) vs observations (O&M) - aka producer vs consumer viewpoints. Is that what Action-140 is about ? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2016 1:57 AM
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2

Minutes from today's F2F meeting are, of course, at 
https://www.w3.org/2016/02/09-sdw-minutes.



Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 23:27:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:20 UTC