- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:42:34 -0700
- To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <574332FA.8050507@ucsb.edu>
Hi, > 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. I know what you mean, but just for the sake of being overly picky, the Linked Data paradigm defines the interaction in case of the SSN. > 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. > Agreed. Resource models and ontologies share some common features but they differ greatly. For instance, the formal semantics of ontology languages such as OWL is geared towards making inferences and not towards modeling constraints. Best, Krzysztof On 05/23/2016 09:15 AM, Joshua Lieberman wrote: > 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 >> <mailto: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/ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> > -- 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 Monday, 23 May 2016 16:43:05 UTC