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

SOSA - a strawman for modularizing the SSN ontology was RE: Detailed comments on SANDA

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:28:20 +0000
To: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
CC: <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
Message-ID: <7b801cc5d8ec418ebbcadb938d73f247@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
Folks – I’ve done some work today to turn Jano’s proposal for modularization [1][2] into a more fully worked strawman.
I’ve provisionally called it SOSA (Sensing-Observations-Sampling-Actuation ontology) and loaded RDF files into GitHub.

See documentation here: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology



[1] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Proposal_5_made_by_KJanowicz

[2] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules

From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 10:51 AM
To: armin.haller@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Cc: kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au; janowicz@ucsb.edu; danh.lephuoc@deri.org
Subject: [ExternalEmail] Detailed comments on SANDA

I’ve added a few comments on SANDA in WebProtege [1] – initially I posted than as rdfs:comment properties on the class and property definitions, but I’ve now spotted the discussion-topic capability, so have moved my questions there. They related to

1.      The names of the classes currently called Process, ObservedProperty, FeatureOfInterest

2.      The range of the property feature-of-interest

3.      The definition of resultTime

4.      The need for an additional time property.

Several of these suggestions relate to alignment with om-lite.


[1] http://webprotege.stanford.edu/#Edit:projectId=32a4ea9e-4d06-4f92-8188-07fcd96f81a7

From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 9:54 AM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for SSN core

Maybe directly adding comments in Webprotege and then a mail to the list?

From: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
Date: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 6:53 am
To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>, "danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>" <danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>>
Subject: RE: Proposal for SSN core

What is the best way to make comments?


From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, 27 June 2016 5:52 PM
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>; danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
Subject: Proposal for SSN core


I have made and uploaded a proposal for the SSN core ontology at:


It is largely similar to what Krzysztof proposed on the Wiki: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules

I added Actuators and called the core subsequently “Sensor and Actuator Core Ontology” aka “Sanda”. I also added domain and range as annotation properties, please check if you agree, but as discussed there should not be any domain and range restrictions in the core.


Received on Monday, 4 July 2016 10:29:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC