Re: ssn: action-155

Thanks. I can work out a small set of axioms for such common core and 
then we can see whether this is an interesting route to take or not.

On 05/10/2016 03:04 PM, p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
> I totally agree with Krzysztof's idea of creating a core 
> ontology/vocabulary. Once we have good models we still need common 
> models to
>
> specify the data for those models; for example common types of 
> sensors, observation types etc.
>
> There are several works on creating ontology models but few on common 
> ontologies (or at least I am not aware of).
>
> Best, Payam
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Sent:* 10 May 2016 21:45
> *To:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: ssn: action-155
> As discussed before, I believe that om-lite should be integrated with 
> the current SSN. In fact, I still strongly believe that we need to 
> develop a simple core ontology/vocabulary around central notions such 
> as sensor and observations that can be used for simple, everyday 
> linked data and acts as interfaces/hooks for other SSN modules.
>
> Krzysztof
>
>
> On 05/09/2016 06:06 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>>
>> FWIW All classes and most properties in om-lite have reasonably 
>> precise definitions in rdf:comment and dct:description properties. 
>>  Not formally axiomatized, but a lot more than just labels. For 
>> example oml:Observation is described:
>>
>> An observation is an act associated with a discrete time instant or 
>> period through which a number, term or other symbol is assigned to a 
>> phenomenon [2]. It involves application of a specified procedure, 
>> such as a sensor, instrument, algorithm or process chain. The 
>> procedure may be applied in-situ, remotely, or ex-situ with respect 
>> to the sampling location. The result of an observation is an estimate 
>> of the value of a property of some feature. Use of a common model 
>> allows observation data using different procedures to be combined 
>> unambiguously.
>>
>> The observation itself is also a feature, since it has properties and 
>> identity.
>>
>> Observation details are important for data discovery and for data 
>> quality estimation.
>>
>> The observation could be considered to carry metadata about an 
>> instance of a property (of the feature of interest). This 
>> property-value metadata complements the dataset and feature metadata 
>> that have been conventionally considered (e.g. ISO 19115).
>>
>> The values for the properties 'procedure', 'featureOfInterest', 
>> 'observedProperty', 'phenomenonTime', 'resultTime' may be inherited 
>> from a container resource.
>>
>> See 
>> <http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite#Observation>http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite#Observation 
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:29 AM
>> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: ssn: action-155
>>
>> Hi Kerry,
>>
>> Sure. One of the reasons to include DUL in the original SSN was the 
>> need for a stronger semantic anchoring of the classes and 
>> relationships defined in SSN. One problem we faced was that terms 
>> such as Sensor, System, Observation, were under-specific to a degree 
>> where a major part of the intended interpretation of these classes 
>> was encoded in terms of their labels. DUL gave us additional axioms 
>> to further refine what was meant by 'Sensor', 'Observation' and so 
>> forth. Removing DUL, will leave us with the same problem as we had 
>> before, and, thus, I proposed to make use of the power of OWL2 to add 
>> a stronger axiomatic foundation to SSN (classes).
>>
>> Best,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/09/2016 05:20 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>>
>>     Krzysztof,
>>
>>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/155
>>
>>     Could you please address this remark you made in an ssn meeting
>>     some time ago? I read it as a suggestion for a major ssn rewrite,
>>     but perhaps it  is a suggestion for an extension instead?  Or
>>     something else?  It is sitting on this page
>>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks  at present but
>>     maybe it deserves attention as one of these proposals on the wiki
>>     here
>>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN?
>>      If nothing better can  you please explain it on the list so we
>>     can handle it appropriately and write it off the “task list” if
>>     appropriate?
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Kerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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


-- 
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