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

Fwd: Re: [w3c/sdw] Update sosa.ttl (#311)

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:02:17 -0700
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7eaf8483-a29d-93af-8676-8b944caeed10@ucsb.edu>
(In case this did not make it to the list)



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [w3c/sdw] Update sosa.ttl (#311)
Date: 	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:59:29 -0700
From: 	Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Reply-To: 	janowicz@ucsb.edu
To: 	w3c/sdw 
<reply+001ac7f6f6bb23197a699a4f8e7ca0354a157c401afd302692cf0000000113b10a9c92a16>, 
w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>
CC: 	kjano <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>, State change 
<state_change@noreply.github.com>



Hi Simon,

> I guess this is related to Jano’s comments on mereotopology vs 
> subclassing. In the case of a device like a phone with several 
> sensors, then it could also be thought of as a platform, which I think 
> Jano calls an observer.

Yes, see my other email sent 10min ago. The term Observer is more 
neutral and includes simulations, animals, devices, and so forth. Most 
importantly, however, it follows modeling practice made popular by Sowa 
and others, namely /Thematic Roles/. An iPhone carries multiple sensors 
but not all of them are taking observations right now. The turned off 
iPhone on your table is a device but not an observer. If you turn it on 
and start taking a picture, it becomes an observer. It is still not a 
sensor but has sensors as its parts.

In fact, confusing mereotopology (or partonomy) and subsumption is a 
very common modeling error.

> Let me clarify the basis for the three hierarchies that I proposed in 
> SOSA core –
> - Device is tangible things, with subclasses Sensor, Platform, 
> Actuator, SamplingDevice

This makes all sensors devices and thereby excludes humans and simulations.

> - Procedure is workflows/plans

Same here.

> - Activity is actions, with starting and ending conditions or outcomes 

Agreed. Question is: is the class Observation really an action?

Cheers,
Jano



On 07/27/2016 04:49 PM, Simon Cox wrote:
> Ø Also, I am a strong advocate of the SensingDevice class in the core. 
> I believe it is of great importance to be able to say something about 
> the device itself, i.e. the Apple iPhone or Samsung Galaxy and these 
> devices include several Sensors.
>
> I guess this is related to Jano’s comments on mereotopology vs 
> subclassing. In the case of a device like a phone with several 
> sensors, then it could also be thought of as a platform, which I think 
> Jano calls an observer.
>
> Let me clarify the basis for the three hierarchies that I proposed in 
> SOSA core –
> - Device is tangible things, with subclasses Sensor, Platform, 
> Actuator, SamplingDevice
> - Procedure is workflows/plans
> - Activity is actions, with starting and ending conditions or outcomes
>
> I think you guys maybe prefer a different primary organization, maybe 
> more functionally based? Can you explain what that is?
>
> From: Armin Haller [mailto:notifications@github.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2016 9:24 AM
> To: w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>
> Subject: Re: [w3c/sdw] Update sosa.ttl (#311)
>
> Thanks Jano!
>
> I have two major concerns with removing so many classes/relations from 
> the core. I believe we need the Actuation and Sensing Activity and in 
> fact, I believe they are much more important in the core than the, in 
> my opinion, too generic Activity class. The ontology should be 
> specific to Sensing, Observing, (Sampling) and Actuating and we should 
> give the user these classes for modelling.
>
> Also, I am a strong advocate of the SensingDevice class in the core. I 
> believe it is of great importance to be able to say something about 
> the device itself, i.e. the Apple iPhone or Samsung Galaxy and these 
> devices include several Sensors.
>
> I will submit a separate version to my branch as I don’t want to 
> overwrite your changes. But I strongly feel we need a bit more in the 
> core than we arrived at now with this compromise.
>
> Cheers,
> Armin
>
> From: kjano <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>>
> Reply-To: w3c/sdw <reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 28 July 2016 7:22 am
> To: w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com<mailto:sdw@noreply.github.com>>
> Subject: [w3c/sdw] Update sosa.ttl (#311)
>
>
> I went into more details what a Procedure is and what it can be used for.
>
> I removed all subclasses of Activity (such as Actuation) but not 
> Activity itself. The description of Activity now names the previous 
> subclasses as examples, e.g., a sampling activity. I changed all the 
> comments that referred to these classes while making sure that the 
> descriptions clarify that different procedures can be set up for 
> different activities. Summing up, we have something like a soft 
> hierarchy now, i.e., no axiomatization but natural descriptions for 
> which kinds of activities and procedures can exist/ be useful.
>
> I removed the strong link between Observation and Activity. We have to 
> agree first whether an Observation is an Information Object or not. 
> This is basically reverting the changes to the original SSN view 
> without implying that this is the right way to go.
>
> I removed Device and Platform but left Observer. Before somebody 
> panics, there is actually a good reason for doing so based on 
> yesterday's emails. We discussed before that we need something like 
> SensingDevice for the thing that carries one or multiple sensors. We 
> also discussed that this should not be Device because humans are not 
> devices. We also discussed that the term Platform is often used in a 
> different sense. To do so, I had to change the textual definition of 
> Observer a bit. I suggest using mereotopology instead of class 
> hierarchies here, i.e., a Sensor is mounted on (partOf, hostedBy,..) 
> an Observer, but a Sensor is not a specific kind of Observer.I also 
> removed all hierarchical relations that relate other classes to 
> Device. As always, these are just proposals, nothing is set in stone. 
> You will see later on that not having a common class for Actuators and 
> Sensors is not perfect, but we can leave it like this for our initial 
> discussion.
>
> I left SamplingFeature in SOSA-core. Please read the initial 
> rdfs:comment. IMHO, it makes a very strong and compelling case.
>
> I left domainIncludes and rangeIncludes but changed the namespace to 
> meta. Thanks Kerry for pointing this out.
>
> I removed some statements that (IMHO) do not carry any semantics such 
> as ' meta:rangeIncludes owl:Thing ;' or 'rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing ;'.
>
> I removed some relations that we cannot use without subclasses of 
> Procedure or Activity. One example is the samplingStrategy relation. I 
> am not saying that this is the right path to take but simply do so to 
> reflect yesterday's discussion.
>
> Overall, the implemented changes reduce SOSA-core to 9 classes and 11 
> relations (those will need more work in another commit).
>
> ________________________________
> You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311
>
> Commit Summary
>
> * Update sosa.ttl
>
> File Changes
>
> * M ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311/files#diff-0> 
> (137)
>
> Patch Links:
>
> * https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311.patch
> * https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311.diff
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on 
> GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311>, or mute the 
> thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEt3MOkuUJd6u-Cb3q0UoWPL8cBxB-Jmks5qZ8wBgaJpZM4JWpF0>.
>
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on 
> GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311#issuecomment-235751641>, or 
> mute the 
> thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlIL2RzDErh-vD3mx2hm6VVkf6gvcviks5qZ-ilgaJpZM4JWpF0>.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311#issuecomment-235756144>, or mute 
> the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABrH9rJuQbcldt6g3ajLPF-LB1fNQtOFks5qZ-6cgaJpZM4JWpF0>.
>


-- 
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 Thursday, 28 July 2016 00:02:51 UTC

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