- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:54:18 -0700
- To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <94bd2457-2e00-875a-12fd-31416e5819ee@ucsb.edu>
s/cubclass/subclass. On 04/16/2017 04:47 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote: > Dear Maxime, all, > > Thanks Maxime. The text below makes small changes that I would like > to suggest for the skos:changeNote: > > 'The Observation class in the initial SSN was defined to be a > cubclass of dul:Situation. To improve alignment with O&M and user > expectations, as well as to follow a consistent modeling strategy for > observations, sampling, and actuation, the new sosa:Observation class > represents an activity. While we do not provide any normative > alignments to DUL, this new Observation class is more in line with > dul:Event instead of dul:Situation.' > > Best, > Jano > > > On 04/16/2017 07:20 AM, Maxime Lefrançois wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I am implementing this change in the ssnx.ttl document, as we also >> decided that the alignment between the old SSN and DUL would be kept >> in ssnx.ttl. >> >> This is the draft of the proposed skos:changeNote: >> >> > The oldssn:Observation was a sub-class of dul:Situation. This >> raised several problems reported in literature. Furthermore, the O&M >> Observation class is defined as some kind of Event. Therefore, it has >> been decided that the new sosa:Observation would be better aligned >> to dul:Event instead of dul:Situation. The Observation class in this >> ontology therefore does not contain any alignment to DUL, so as to >> help transitioning without harm. >> >> It will be part of the last pull request about the ssnx, sosa, and >> ssn ontologies, which are now stabilized. >> >> Best, >> Maxime >> >> Le mer. 22 févr. 2017 à 01:01, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au >> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>> a écrit : >> >> +1 from me too, with a skos:changeNote attached to the >> oldssn:Observation in the ssnx alignment. >> >> *From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr >> <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> >> *Date: *Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 10:56 pm >> *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>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org >> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> >> *Subject: *Re: Forecasts and observations - was I RE: SSN Thread >> for github issue 378 - Side effects of ssn:Observation being a >> kind of dul:Event instead of dul:Situation >> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> >> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 10:56 pm >> >> +1 for what you suggest Kerry. >> >> And I suggest we document this conceptual change in a >> skos:changeNote attached to oldssn:Observation. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Maxime >> >> Le mar. 21 févr. 2017 à 12:33, Kerry Taylor >> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> a écrit : >> >> SSN-people, >> >> I am trying to close off this subject as originally posed – >> and without diverting into the bigger issue of forecasts and >> observations. It relates to solving issue-62 and issue-67 >> (how does ssn:observation get re-worked as an activity/act?) >> >> (1) Please see the conversation thread >> here.https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0089.html >> >> (2) it was rooted in Maxime’s observation that >> >> ssn:Observation rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty >> dul:includesEvent ; owl:someValuesFrom ssn:Stimulus ] . >> >> and Maxime’s suggestion (among others that were discussed >> extensively) that >> >> Øshould this axiom be simply deleted from the SSN-DUL alignment ? >> >> (3) I propose that we do exactly as posed here --- that is, >> delete the axiom ssn:Observation rdfs:subClassOf [ >> owl:onProperty dul:includesEvent ; owl:someValuesFrom >> ssn:Stimulus ] >> >> fromhttps://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/dul-alignment.owl >> >> (4) figure 5.9 here may help >> understandinghttps://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/ >> >> (5) I don’t think deleting the axiom creates a big problem >> as the Stimulus can still be reached from the Observation via >> the Sensor that observed it and Stimulus it detects. And if >> there is an issue with sensors detecting multiple stimuli >> (which ssn allows) and so we would not know which stimulus >> was involved in the observation (which can happen), then >> someone using ssn is going to have to work harder and define >> a fresh sensor for each distinct stimulus if they need this. >> >> (6) What to do with the alignment to old ssn? The change to >> the dul alignment of Observation itself is already problematic : >> >> ssn:Observation<http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Observation> becomes >> a kind of >> dul:Event<http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Event> >> instead of a dul:Situation >> >> So… I don’t think we can align old and new ssn in an ontology >> fragment for this. I propose that the best we can do is >> explain the change in documentation. Any better idea? >> >> Does anyone object to this path forward? >> >> -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 -- 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, 17 April 2017 01:54:55 UTC