Re: SDW meeting this week: approve FPWD for SSN

Frans,

“Looks like” can be misleading ;>). STA specifies how to interact with certain resources using HTTP methods and patterns from OData.  The particular resources specified for STA are based on SWE / O&M concepts, although it is unknown whether any axioms that might be implied by the STA resource model conflict with any defined by omlite. 

SSN specifies similar concepts, plus or minus various constraints on those concepts and their relationships. One “could” use HTTP methods to interact with resources based on SSN concepts. How to do that has not yet been specified in any detail except to the extent that all HTTP REST API’s are similar since they are based on HTTP. 

As I mentioned earlier, there is potential for STA extensions to provide a service interface for SSN in the future, and it is certainly worthwhile to keep that in mind. It’s may also be true that resource models and ontologies can look very similar and one may be derived from the other, but I don’t think they are the same thing.

Josh 

> On May 23, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
> 
> 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 st.andards can also be similar (HTTP GET, POST, PATCH, DELETE). 
> 
> Regards,
> Frans
> 
> 
> 2016-05-23 16:10 GMT+02:00 Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>