- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 21:50:49 -0700
- To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
- Cc: danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de, public-sdw-wg@w3.org, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
- Message-ID: <128988a1-1bb8-7de7-5446-161079963412@ucsb.edu>
Hi Rob, > 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. I think we are fine and in line with the proposal. Sosa-om and so forth can be safely ignored for now. They just show that our ideas are doable and that our work (in fact an early snapshot of it) is not incompatible to other approaches. Cheers, Jano On 07/26/2016 05:07 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote: > > 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 > <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 July 2016 7:58 AM > *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; Cox, Simon > (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com > <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> > *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de > <mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Kerry Taylor > <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto: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 > <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> > *Reply-To: *"janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" > <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> > *Date: *Wednesday, 27 July 2016 6:34 am > *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>>, > "jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com > <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>" > <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>> > *Cc: *"danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de > <mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de > <mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>, Kerry Taylor > <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <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 Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 04:51:23 UTC