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

Re: SDW meeting this week: approve FPWD for SSN

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz42cmQYMMLKRRoweYgLc7PGaj=u46d6q_JN8Ua3jMKDD1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello Josh,

Thank you for the information. I do wonder if the distinction between an
ontology (SSN) and an interface specification (STA) is all that clear. The
diagram of the datamodel of the SensorThings API
<http://ogc-iot.github.io/ogc-iot-api/datamodel.html> looks a lot like an
ontology and defines similar things as SSN does. And since SSN is a web
ontology, the API that people will use with the standards can also be
similar (HTTP GET, POST, PATCH, DELETE).

Regards,
Frans


2016-05-23 16:10 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>:

> Frans,
>
> Some observations and clarifications:
>
>
>    - Sensor Things API (STA) is presently an adopted OGC standard.
>    - It is a compatible REST-based profile of existing SWE interface
>    standards, particularly it is also based on the O&M information model.
>    - As a profile, it is compatible with and complementary to existing
>    standards, such as SOS and SPS, not a replacement.
>    - SSN is an ontology, not a service interface specification, so there
>    should not be a direct conflict between SSN and STA, just as there isn’t
>    necessarily conflict between RDF / OWL and Linked Data API or SPARQL API.
>    - To the extent that SSN is / becomes an elaboration of O&M, there is
>    room to make extensions of STA that incorporate the additional concepts and
>    relationships of SSN, such as more elaborate sensor descriptions.
>    - The more direct overlap is probably that between SSN and SensorML
>    and this may require some harmonization work for OGC standards consistency.
>
> Josh
>
> On May 23, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello Kerry,
>
> A colleague just showed me his work on publishing and consuming sensor
> data. He uses the OGC SensorThings API
> <http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/sensorthings> and is happy
> with its capabilities and simplicity. I am not sure how far SensorThings
> API is in the process of becoming an official OGC standard, but it is clear
> that there is lots of overlap with SSN. In the introduction of the SSN FPWD
> it says it can be regarded as a modern replacement for OGC's Sensor Web
> Enablement standards. But the same thing can be said about the SensorThings
> API. So questions that come to mind are:
>
>    - Why is the OGC working on development of two standards for the same
>    thing?
>    - If both SSN and the SensorThings API are to become OGC standards, to
>    what extent are they interoperable?
>    - Is there some kind of collaboration between standards developers?
>
> Is it possible to devote some words about other standards that are
> presently in development in the introduction? Perhaps the  W3C Generic
> Sensor API <https://w3c.github.io/sensors/> can also be mentioned?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
> 2016-05-23 8:48 GMT+02:00 Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As planned, the editors of SSN would like to transition  the current SSN
>> editors’ draft (http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ dated 23 May) to the
>> status of “First public working draft” in the w3c and “discussion paper” in
>> OGC.
>>
>> Please do have a good look before the telecon this week, and do please
>> remember that there is nothing final about this – it is much more a
>> statement of intent and options  littered with “issues” than a
>> specification.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Kerry
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 15:54:47 UTC

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