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

I think owl:topObjectProperty was there to make it look nice in WebProtege.

Since the *Protégé tooling is very much based around OWL semantics, if we want to minimise OWL effects – in the core at least – then we need to be careful not to pick up Protégé cruft.

Simon

From: Le Phuoc, Danh [mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 July 2016 8:10 AM
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: SOSA - a strawman for modularizing the SSN ontology was RE: Detailed comments on SANDA

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<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Reply-To: "janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Date: Tuesday 12 July 2016 at 21:27
To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au<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>" <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 <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
Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto: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/


Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net