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

RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:50:59 +0000
To: <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
CC: <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <463e17f1cba643c38a76dd3f84b79ef7@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
Yes, but I think we were thinking more that a procedure uses a device, during an activity.

When describing the agents of observation, it depends how close you want to look. There are multiple layers of encapsulation. That was probably the motivation for bundling them together in SensorML and O&M, but SSN chose to be more careful about distinguishing physical devices from workflows – which I certainly understand as well.

The word ‘process’ is overloaded, and in particular is used in contradictory ways in BFO and O&M, and SensorML uses it in both ways. So now I prefer to avoid it altogether.

From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:10 AM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Cc: danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; janowicz@ucsb.edu; armin.haller@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: SOSA core - procedures vs devices

Sorry I missed the call today. So a device “runs” (l:n) a procedure in / during (1:n) a process?


On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:39 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au<mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> wrote:

I’ve put some notes and a diagram explaining my understanding of the consensus from today’s call here https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology#Procedures_vs_Devices


1.      I have adjusted the names of the classes to avoid ambiguity between the re-usable things and the events when they are used

2.      I have not yet implemented this in SOSA-Core – its just a proposal for now.


Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 23:52:11 UTC

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