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

Re: Updated SOSA core RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 01:50:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LwjRYsjOS2JggjDyu4j6B1K-UuXV9z15iEYzupx52BDcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Personally i do find it approaching K's proposal - but the roles of modules
a little blurred. The implication is even more modules at this level of
granularity - or another supporting diagram that has the same underlying
module structure, but shows the extensions (OWL axioms) etc attached to
each concept-defining module in the main hierarchy.


On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 10:18 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> Agreed! This looks to me very little like K’s proposal as  I understood
> it. Am in the middle of composing a longer version of something like this.
>
>
>
> >“But if we really have a tabula rasa,”
>
> We do not – refer to the charter please.
>
>
>
> *From:* Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 July 2016 10:08 AM
> *To:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>;
> janowicz@ucsb.edu; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>
>
> *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Kerry Taylor <
> kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Subject:* Re: Updated SOSA core RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi - whilst I'm not as familiar with the details the amount of modules and
> the logical structure fit my expectation.  I think however that the
> explanations of these will need some work to make them accessible. In
> particular sosa-om and sosa-sam explanations only help if you are
> intimately familiar with these. It would help even at this early stage to
> perhaps describe what these contain, and why they are not part of the core.
> If what they are is an extension of sosa-core that does not define new
> entities, but uses additional expressivity available in a language then
> perhaps we can come up with a naming convention that reflects the role of
> each module? eg sosa-ssn-align ?
>
>
>
> If modules are doing multiple things - like extending scope, adding axioms
> and performing alignments (declaring equivalent classes) then this is a
> departure from Krzysztof's proposal - which may not be a bad thing but
> means that the modularisation strategy needs to be re-articulated and taken
> into account.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 08:28 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Currently Sensing is a subclass of Observing (or Observation), which is a
> subclass of Activity. That was my proposed ordering – seeing ‘sensing’ as a
> subset of ‘observing’ to be consistent with OGC usage, where ‘Observation’
> covers not only sensing but also forecasting, simulation, human-observing
> (which is a combination of sensing and application of knowledge).
>
>
>
> But if we really have a tabula rasa, then we should consider the best
> terminology and correct hierarchy – maybe ‘estimating’ is a more general
> term.
>
>
>
> But definitely the order in that hierarchy should be resolved.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 July 2016 7:58 AM
> *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
> *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Kerry Taylor <
> kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Updated SOSA core RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
>
>
> The proposal we arrived to now looks good to me.
>
>
>
> The only change, where I second Simon is, that we should rename Actuation
> to Actuating. That is then aligned to Sensing and also implies an Activity.
> The same applies to Observation which I would rename Observing. Although, I
> am not sure if we need the Observing class in the core if we have Sensing
> anyway.
>
>
>
> *From: *Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Reply-To: *"janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 27 July 2016 6:34 am
> *To: *"Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Armin Haller <
> armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com" <
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
> *Cc: *"danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, "
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Kerry Taylor <
> kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Subject: *Re: Updated SOSA core RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
>
>
> I made some cosmetic changes and pushed them to github. I am going to make
> another series of changes that are a bit bigger and thus will leave them in
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/kjanowicz-ssn/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl for now
> until we agree on them. Most of this is from our last discussion about
> procedures and platforms.
>
> Jano
>
> On 07/18/2016 10:01 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> I’ve just pushed an update to the SOSA Core ontology
>
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/simon-ssn/ssn/rdf
>
> in particular https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/simon-ssn/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
>
>
>
> This includes the hierarchy shown on the wiki page
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology
>
>
>
> I’ve cleaned up the class names a bit, and added documentation on all
> elements.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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, 27 July 2016 01:50:55 UTC

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