- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 22:06:39 -0700
- To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <ee7be0b4-fa0c-2581-7045-4e07b9c378fc@ucsb.edu>
Hi Kerry, > So I understood the “core” was to be comprised of essential > Iot-driven terms and was also semantically-simple ie RDF-alone or RDFS > but always ensuring compatibility with OWL-DL. I’d be happy to have > no subclass axioms, too. And in only one file. I am not sure whether > we agreed , or whether I just assumed the one-file part.. Sorry, if I implied somewhere that SOSA-core is merely (or should merely be) about IoT. I just use IoT as a good example. Core is (should be) way broader than just IoT. Long-tail scientific data comes to mind as another example. Jano On 07/26/2016 07:11 PM, Kerry Taylor wrote: > > So I understood the “core” was to be comprised of essential > Iot-driven terms and was also semantically-simple ie RDF-alone or RDFS > but always ensuring compatibility with OWL-DL. I’d be happy to have > no subclass axioms, too. And in only one file. I am not sure whether > we agreed , or whether I just assumed the one-file part.. > > For the non-core modules I was expecting “horizontal” –style > expressivity – ie OWL DL is fine as appropriate. Furthermore, the > non-core modules (or module?) would aim to separate concerns insofar > as this increases usability. > > Ø- 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. > > I agree this is essential, when the terms are new and independent of > the old ssn, (which they appear to be to me in the sosa proposal). If > they *are *ssn terms, on the other hand, I don’t need such a diagram > as the horizontal/non-core ssn modules will do that alignment properly > anyway, and will also provide the documentation you ask for. I think > such a diagram aimed at users of the core alone might be useful for > users at publication time, then, but is not essential for the team’s > internal use where we are now. Not that it would hurt. > > Kerry > > *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 July 2016 11:50 AM > *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Rob Atkinson > <rob@metalinkage.com.au> > *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Updated SOSA core RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices > > 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 <mailto: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 05:07:16 UTC