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

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

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:55:16 -0700
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au
Cc: danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, public-sdw-wg@w3.org, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
Message-ID: <57859F84.8040407@ucsb.edu>
To make a long story short:

The topObjectProperty relates *any* two objects to each other. Hence, 
the interpretation of every object property is a subset of the 
interpretation of this universal property (U in DL notation). 
Unsurprisingly, there is also a bottomObjectProperty (N). OWL2 also 
introduces similar properties for data properties (called 
topDataProperty and bottomDataProperty).

If I recall correctly, this should look like this (for bottom): \top 
\sqsubseteq \lnot \exists N.\top i.e., the interpretation of N is empty.

This is important as it allows for disjointness axioms such as 
sosa:hasResult \sqcap sosa:madeObservation \sqsubseteq \emph{N}. This 
was not possible in OLW1.

Summing up, we do not use OWL2 in SOSA-core, thus we do not need to 
state that every (object) property is a sub property of topObjectProperty.

Cheers,
Jano


On 07/12/2016 04:05 PM, Joshua Lieberman wrote:
> Do you mean to subclass rdf:Property then?
>
>> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:50 PM, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au 
>> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au 
>> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; Armin Haller 
>> <armin.haller@anu.edu.au <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; 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>>
>> *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 andowl: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 
>> <http://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
>>     <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 
>> <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 Wednesday, 13 July 2016 01:55:53 UTC

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