- 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