- From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 23:25:57 +0000
- To: <phila@w3.org>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> [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