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

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

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:04:34 -0700
Cc: kjano <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f0641354-176f-bb8c-6b41-6fb3b6218c78@ucsb.edu>
Great. Thanks Armin.

    I am agnostic about the Procedures in the core. I thought you
    introduced that? I don’t feel strongly about it in the core.

Sorry for that. I simply forgot it. IMHO, Procedure it key. Please let 
us leave it in there.

    As mentioned, Activity is removed, but Observation and Actuating is
    kept.

I am fine with this. I would prefer to call it Actuation to keep the 
language clear and in line.

    In terms of Platform, I already mentioned, I prefer Device over
    Platform, but one of the two needs to be in the core. I think of
    Sensor Networks when I read Platform.

So basically the argument against Observer was that it does not include 
hosting actuators. This is a fair point. So we are still looking for 
that thing that hosts sensors and actuators. As I said before, I would 
be unhappy with Device but would be okay with the more abstract 
Platform. It looks like you feel exactly the other way around. Maybe we 
should introduce a new and neutral term such as a *Carrier* or *Host*. 
Would that work for you (and @dr-shorthair 
<https://github.com/dr-shorthair> (and everybody else))? IMHO, a new 
term is often a good choice as it is not so loaded with years of 
previous interpretations.

    I think you meant to say to have Sensing, Observation (or
    Observing), Actuation (I prefer Actuating), Platform,
    SamplingFeature, FeatureOfInterest, ObservedProperty, Result,
    Sensor, and Actuator in the core?

Can you explain why we would need Sensing? I think I am really missing 
something here. When exactly would you create a Sensing instance and 
what would you use it for? I would just have Observation and nothing 
more but I understand that this excludes the Actuators and thus I am 
fine with having Actuation in there as well.

Jano

On 07/27/2016 09:21 PM, Armin Haller wrote:
> I have added committed my changes again, this time to my own branch 
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/armins-branch/ssn/rdf/sosa.ttl
>
> As mentioned, Activity is removed, but Observation and Actuating is 
> kept. In the description, we can still call it an activity though, it 
> is an activity in the real world after all.
> In terms of Platform, I already mentioned, I prefer Device over 
> Platform, but one of the two needs to be in the core. I think of 
> Sensor Networks when I read Platform.
> I think you meant to say to have Sensing, Observation (or Observing), 
> Actuation (I prefer Actuating), Platform, SamplingFeature, 
> FeatureOfInterest, ObservedProperty, Result, Sensor, and Actuator in 
> the core?
>
> I am agnostic about the Procedures in the core. I thought you 
> introduced that? I don’t feel strongly about it in the core.
>
> From: kjano <notifications@github.com>
> Reply-To: w3c/sdw <reply@reply.github.com>
> Date: Thursday, 28 July 2016 1:20 pm
> To: w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>
> Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Comment 
> <comment@noreply.github.com>
> Subject: Re: [w3c/sdw] Update sosa.ttl (#311)
>
>
> I would keep Observation and Actuation and remove Activity. As I said 
> before, I would also propose to stay entirely away from the discussion 
> whether this is an event and information object or something else for 
> SOSA-core. IMHO, and I do realize that we all have our hobby horses 
> and use cases, I would suggest to have Sensor, Observation, Actuation, 
> Platform (which IMHO covers most of 'Device'), 
> SamplingFeature,FeatureOfInterest, ObservedProperty, Result, Sensor, 
> and Actuator in SOSA-core -- nothing more. We should keep in mind that 
> this is a OWA-based ontology, not a data model. The lack of a class 
> does not imply that somebody cannot introduce it, subclass or 
> superclass SOSA-core parts, and so forth. If you guys believe that we 
> absolutely need Device, I will not object in the next telco as long as 
> we finally get a chance to move this forward :-).
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on 
> GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/311#issuecomment-235790226>, or 
> mute the 
> thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEt3MISFMvzLDOLpfatYx5SFcWSfNgDBks5qaCAMgaJpZM4JWpF0>.
>
> —
> 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-235797316>, or mute 
> the thread 
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABrH9greIngXIcEsQpiZXEO7mf5KriWbks5qaC5WgaJpZM4JWpF0>.
>


-- 
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 05:05:12 UTC

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