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

Re: ssn: action-155

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 08:27:46 -0700
To: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57334F72.6020706@ucsb.edu>
> Fully agree with your statement below and this is exactly what I 
> envisioned with the figure around modularization that is currently in 
> our SSN note. The Sensing Device core is all RDFs based in a 
> schema.org style with a very simple mechanism to attach observations. 
> The vertical layers then extend that core with more detailed classes 
> and OWL2 axioms, eventually reaching the outer layer DUL layering.

Great. Intuitively, I think that this all could be done while still 
reusing major parts of the current SSN, i.e., without dramatic changes 
to the existing foundation. I will try to come up with a draft before 
the meeting next week.



On 05/11/2016 12:40 AM, Armin Haller wrote:
> Fully agree with your statement below and this is exactly what I 
> envisioned with the figure around modularization that is currently in 
> our SSN note. The Sensing Device core is all RDFs based in a 
> schema.org style with a very simple mechanism to attach observations. 
> The vertical layers then extend that core with more detailed classes 
> and OWL2 axioms, eventually reaching the outer layer DUL layering.
>
> From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
> Reply-To: "janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" 
> <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
> Date: Wednesday, 11 May 2016 6:45 am
> To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" 
> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>, Kerry Taylor 
> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@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>>
> Subject: Re: ssn: action-155
> Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
> Resent-Date: Wednesday, 11 May 2016 7:47 am
>
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2016 15:36:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:21 UTC