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

The rangeIncludes and domainIncludes are only in there for documentation purposes in the development process. I agree, we should remove them later.

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Reply-To: "janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Date: Tuesday 5 July 2016 02:31
To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>, 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>>, "danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>" <danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>>
Subject: Re: SOSA - a strawman for modularizing the SSN ontology was RE: Detailed comments on SANDA

Fantastic! I am just looking at it. I am unsure whether rangeIncludes and domainIncludes should go in there as they have no formal semantics.  This means that they are not part of the meta-language. This may turn out to be a problem. I have to think about this...

Thanks Simon!


On 07/04/2016 03:28 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
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

Enjoy.

Simon

[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> [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 10:51 AM
To: armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Cc: 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: [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.

Simon

[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) <<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>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 <<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>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 <<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>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?

Simon

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

Hi,

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

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

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.

Cheers,
Armin






--
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net