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

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

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 22:02:46 -0700
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <828f54c1-fee3-c362-89ea-6f55cfc954db@ucsb.edu>
> but the roles of modules a little blurred.

You are absolutely right. Lets use out telcons to discuss these issues 
and how many types of modules there are (or should be).


On 07/26/2016 06:50 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <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
>     <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; janowicz@ucsb.edu
>     <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; 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
>
>     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
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 05:03:41 UTC

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