- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:27:57 -0700
- To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "danh.lephuoc@deri.org" <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
- Message-ID: <578552CD.4060903@ucsb.edu>
> The rangeIncludes and domainIncludes are only in there for > documentation purposes in the development process. I agree, we should > remove them later. I think they have a very loose meaning in schema.org but they have no formal semantics. The only way to ensure that they do not break RDF (and especially OWL) is by defining them as owl:AnnotationProperty (see Simon's code). The danger is that somebody may confuse them with domains and ranges and that some systems may include them in their facets as properties while they are in fact part of the meta language. Summing up, I would also propose to remove them. Jano On 07/06/2016 05:53 AM, Armin Haller wrote: > 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 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 >> <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] >> *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. >> >> 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) <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>, >> "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>, >> "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> >> *Cc:* Kerry Taylor >> <<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Krzysztof >> Janowicz <<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>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 > Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ > Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 20:28:32 UTC