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

Vertical is easy - i understand that - the core has RDFS - then we need
OWL-DL axioms in a vertical module - and i guess alignments to other
ontolofies are a vertical module.
its the horizontal partioning that interests me - presumably there will be
a module for sensing, one for describing devices etc.  The core will
presumably be common so that the relationships between things at this
detail level dont need to import all the complex and potentially un-defined
detail - i.e. we dont want to repeat O&M having to define an GF_AnyFeature
class because there was no core set of concepts for it to use :-)



On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 at 09:28 Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
>
>
> The core was always proposed to be only one lightweight ontology. The
> other vertical modules build upon this core to define more axiomatically
> the relations between the classes in the core and also introduce new
> classes/relationships that are specific to the extension. The core itself
> is envisioned to be very lightweight so that it can be used in a similar
> way than schema.org is used these days on many webpages.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Armin
>
>
>
> *From: *Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 27 July 2016 3:03 pm
> *To: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <
> rob@metalinkage.com.au>
> *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: Updated SOSA core RE: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, 27 July 2016 3:03 pm
>
>
>
>
>
> I know this is all a bit fraught because of multiple different communities
> of practice having their own preferences, but I'd like to make a few
> suggestions that may help...
>
>
>
> The beauty of using RDF as the platform is that we have existing
> vocabularies that allows us to declare equivalence of terms in use, and we
> can make just the statements that we find necessary, without stopping
> others combining these easily with other statements.
>
>
>
> That said, I dont necessarily believe that RDF based tooling is a given
> here - I would envisage much of the potential usage to be based on JSON-LD
> with clients picking out just the metadata they need. Hence I dont see why
> one file is a necessary constraint. Most IoT uses will simply be to define
> the semantics of terms in a payload, and clients will not actually
> dereference and worry about the internal structure of the definition space.
>
>
>
> One of Armin's earlier proposals about modules had about 5 modules in the
> "core" - i.e. a finer grained horizontal partitioning. I would have thought
> someone describing a device would appreciate having a device description
> module, without having to assess how much of the module is relevant - and
> someone deploying it another module that imports it etc.  i was expecting
> something like a sosa-om to introduce the observation-centric concepts -
> but be part of the "core" set of modules  One role for a sosa-core would be
> simply to lay out the separation of concerns of the process (the five base
> classes, and any subclasses necessary for decoupling of other modules (i.e.
> the sosa-om does not need to import a sosa-procedure module which provides
> a model of how  a sensor relates to a procedure - it just uses the base
> class from sosa-core)
>
>
>
> There is probably an interesting measure for what % of a module a Use Case
> requires - and how many use cases each element in a module supports
>
>
>
> rob
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 12:11 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> 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> 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]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 July 2016 10:08 AM
> *To:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>;
> janowicz@ucsb.edu; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
>
>
> *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Kerry Taylor <
> 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> 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]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 27 July 2016 7:58 AM
> *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
> *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Kerry Taylor <
> 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>
> *Reply-To: *"janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 27 July 2016 6:34 am
> *To: *"Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Armin Haller <
> armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com" <
> jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
> *Cc: *"danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, "
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Kerry Taylor <
> 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 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
>
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>