- From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:50:38 +0000
- To: <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- CC: <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>
- Message-ID: <9a54dfcd95bf41d9b01ad3c50cdb466c@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
I’ve added a few comments on SANDA in WebProtege [1] – initially I posted than as rdfs:comment properties on the class and property definitions, but I’ve now spotted the discussion-topic capability, so have moved my questions there. They related to 1. The names of the classes currently called Process, ObservedProperty, FeatureOfInterest 2. The range of the property feature-of-interest 3. The definition of resultTime 4. The need for an additional time property. Several of these suggestions relate to alignment with om-lite. Simon [1] http://webprotege.stanford.edu/#Edit:projectId=32a4ea9e-4d06-4f92-8188-07fcd96f81a7 From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 9:54 AM To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; janowicz@ucsb.edu; danh.lephuoc@deri.org Subject: Re: Proposal for SSN core Maybe directly adding comments in Webprotege and then a mail to the list? From: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> Date: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 6:53 am To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>, "danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>" <danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org>> Subject: RE: Proposal for SSN core What is the best way to make comments? Simon From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au] Sent: Monday, 27 June 2016 5:52 PM To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>; danh.lephuoc@deri.org<mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org> Subject: Proposal for SSN core Hi, I have made and uploaded a proposal for the SSN core ontology at: http://webprotege.stanford.edu/#Edit:projectId=32a4ea9e-4d06-4f92-8188-07fcd96f81a7 It is largely similar to what Krzysztof proposed on the Wiki: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_modules I added Actuators and called the core subsequently “Sensor and Actuator Core Ontology” aka “Sanda”. I also added domain and range as annotation properties, please check if you agree, but as discussed there should not be any domain and range restrictions in the core. Cheers, Armin
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 00:51:40 UTC