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 22:06:39 -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

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