Re: SOSA - a strawman for modularizing the SSN ontology was RE: Detailed comments on SANDA from Krzysztof Janowicz on 2016-07-12 (public-sdw-wg@w3.org from July 2016)

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:12:21 -0700
To: "Le Phuoc, Danh" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, 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>
Message-ID: <57856B45.8050700@ucsb.edu>
I totally agree and in the previous email I already proposed to remove 
owl:topObjectProperty, particularly as we do not have any axioms that 
would require it.


On 07/12/2016 03:09 PM, Le Phuoc, Danh wrote:
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> Regarding to formal semantics of the current version of SOSA, we’re 
> using OWL vocabularies, owl:Class and owl:topObjectProperty, so, are 
> we still trying to use only RDFS semantics for the core as discussed 
> before?
>
> Best,
>
> Danh
>
> *From: *Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Reply-To: *"janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Date: *Tuesday 12 July 2016 at 21:27
> *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 <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
> *Subject: *Re: SOSA - a strawman for modularizing the SSN ontology was 
> RE: Detailed comments on SANDA
> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday 12 July 2016 at 21:28
>
>     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
>     <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) <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?
>
>         Simon
>
>         *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
>
>         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/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
>
>     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 <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
> 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 22:12:56 UTC