- 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