Re: ssn: action-155 from Krzysztof Janowicz on 2016-05-17 (public-sdw-wg@w3.org from May 2016)

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:11:21 -0700
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "Le Phuoc, Danh" <danh.lephuoc@deri.org>, "p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk" <p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <573B6CD9.5030504@ucsb.edu>
Hi all,

Here are some more details for today's discussion and the modularization 
and core ontology in general: 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_core_moduls .

Best,
Krzysztof


On 05/11/2016 05:53 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>
> It seems to me that this discussion is now approaching something that 
> could be built.  However, we need to  prioritise fixing down  the FPWD 
> very shortly.  So there may be enough of a “thing” right now to write 
> into the editor’s draft. And indeed something rather like this was 
> already written several weeks ago (thanks Armin), in 
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ (see section “modularisation”)  but 
> escaped comment entirely.  So, in the short term, it would be really 
> helpful if you could look at what is there already and make *very 
> specific* suggestions about what needs to be changed, if anything. 
> This is urgent.
>
> The other option is to remove that section entirely from FPWD, which 
> is where I thought we had to go earlier this week.
>
> We also need the documentation around SSN as it is now, (as in 
> SSN-minus-DUL) that Danh is working on. And a bit of polishing and we 
> might get there!
>
> Furthermore, please do explain your ideas and ontology fragments (or 
> whole SSN rewritten ) on the wiki: 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN . 
> This is not so urgent  but would be our next job after FPWD is out.
>
> -Kerry
>
> *From:*Le Phuoc, Danh [mailto:danh.lephuoc@deri.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 May 2016 7:05 PM
> *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu; p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk; Simon.Cox@csiro.au; 
> Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: ssn: action-155
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> I think it’s the right way to eventually, so, I’m happy to contribute, 
> feel free to assign actions to me.
>
> Best,
>
> Danh
>
> *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: *Tuesday 10 May 2016 23:35
> *To: *"p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk <mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk>" 
> <p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk <mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk>>, 
> "Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au 
> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>, "kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>" <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: *Tuesday 10 May 2016 23:44
>
> Hi Payam,
>
> Yes, help would be very much appreciated. I will email around a draft 
> shortly. There are in fact many controlled vocabularies for sensor 
> types and measurement types that we could refer to (e.g., 
> http://www.bodc.ac.uk/products/web_services/vocab/ "101; anemometers; 
> Instrument that measures wind speed and direction at a single 
> elevation." to give just one example).
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
> On 05/10/2016 03:26 PM, p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk 
> <mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>     That would be great; I am also happy to help. NASA's sweet
>     ontology has a vocabulary for units of measurement but I haven't
>     come across any for sensor types
>
>     and other vocabularies.
>
>     OntoSensor may cover some of the vocab/concepts:
>     https://marinemetadata.org/conventions
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Payam
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>     <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>     *Sent:* 10 May 2016 23:07
>     *To:* Barnaghi P Dr (Elec Electronic Eng); Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>     <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
>     <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* 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
>     <mailto: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>
>         <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>         *Sent:* 10 May 2016 21:45
>         *To:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
>         kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>;
>         public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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
>
>             Simon
>
>             *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:29 AM
>             *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
>             <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>             <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2016 19:11:53 UTC