W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Proposals (was Re: Architecture of SOSA/SSN integration) : issue-87 only

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:36:36 -0800
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <68402113-8a92-d915-0b6d-9a42a1f191dd@ucsb.edu>
> ØAnd it appears very strange to me to state that an observable 
> property is a sub property of a property.
>
> Not strange actually – not all properties are observable. In the 
> revision of ISO 19109:2015 we distinguished between
>
> -Observation
>
> -Assertion (e.g. name, price)
>
> -Derivation (e.g. classifications based on combinations of observed 
> properties)
>
> -Inheritance/instantiation (e.g. where a property value is assumed on 
> the basis of class membership)
>
> These are not necessarily disjoint, and it is likely that observable 
> properties are the most interesting (depending on you epistemological 
> viewpoint) but it is useful to recognize that observable properties 
> are a distinct class.

Yes, not strange at all. I agree with all of Simon's arguments and we 
also made them in one of our telco's half a year ago.


On 02/05/2017 04:57 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> ØAnd it appears very strange to me to state that an observable 
> property is a sub property of a property.
>
> Not strange actually – not all properties are observable. In the 
> revision of ISO 19109:2015 we distinguished between
>
> -Observation
>
> -Assertion (e.g. name, price)
>
> -Derivation (e.g. classifications based on combinations of observed 
> properties)
>
> -Inheritance/instantiation (e.g. where a property value is assumed on 
> the basis of class membership)
>
> These are not necessarily disjoint, and it is likely that observable 
> properties are the most interesting (depending on you epistemological 
> viewpoint) but it is useful to recognize that observable properties 
> are a distinct class.
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr]
> *Sent:* Monday, 6 February, 2017 00:22
> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; SDW WG Public List 
> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Proposals (was Re: Architecture of SOSA/SSN 
> integration) : issue-87 only
>
> +1 for Kerry's arguments.
>
> And it appears very strange to me to state that an observable property 
> is a sub property of a property.
>
> I just changed to sosa:Property instead of sosa:ObservableProperty in 
> the proposal I am currently working on.
>
>  + add relations and classes that are missing
>
> best,
>
> Maximle
>
> Le dim. 5 févr. 2017 à 13:44, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> a écrit :
>
>     PhilA has said
>
>     >>> Looking at the two definitions, there are differences but they look
>
>         >>> very minor to my eyes with sosa:ObservableProperty looking
>     slightly
>
>         >>> more general, so, again, I'd delete ssn:Property.
>
>     This is issue-87. As you can see by my analysis last November in
>     the tracker https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/87 ,
>
>     (1). A sosa: Observable Property is NOT an O&M property. The O&M
>     standard has no such term.
>
>     (2) The ssn:Property  has the same intended meaning as an  an O&M
>     Property (and, yes it is an O&M “Property”) and this is explicit
>     by the annotation  within ssn  “<dc:source> skos:exactMatch 'property' [O&M]http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/om  </dc:source>”
>
>       
>
>     (3) What is shown in the mapping table is  not the complete
>     annotation for  ssn:Property – just an extract. However that very
>     paragraph deserves improvement.
>
>     (4) ssn:Property is used in other places throughout ssn that have
>     nothing to do with the narrow context associated with Observation
>      as it is used in SOSA.
>
>     In particular, nothing to do with a
>
>     (5) ssn:Property cannot be deleted --- many, many things will
>     break.  Nor can it be replaced by sosa:ObservableProperty (see
>     4).  Maybe it is possible to say sosa:Property rdfs:SubclassOf
>      ssn:Property but this has its problems too (ssn instances would
>     not be sosa instances). A more sophisticated  workaround is
>     required if we head that direction.
>
>     (6) ssn users know it as “Property” . So do O&M users. Why change,
>     who are we serving?
>
>     (6) OTOH a simple name change  in sosa to “Property” and some
>     clarification on the rdfs:comments in both places would work – and
>     then ssn and sosa can use the very same term. This is the essence
>     of my proposal on the wiki as a pattern to solve all these many
>     problems.
>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN#Compromise_Proposal_6_made_by_Kerry_January_2017
>
>     In this case the rdfs:comment suggested by Armin looks very close
>      but I prefer abbreviated as follows (due to (4) )  “An observable
>     quality of a real world phenomena (thing, person, event, etc.) “
>     or here is another idea  that I propose “An observable quality of
>     a real world phenomena (object,  person, or event), typically a
>     FeatureOfInterest” . That works well  in the context for my
>     proposal that also shows how to use it in the simple core.
>
>     -Kerry
>
>     Dr Kerry Taylor
>
>     Associate Professor (Data Science)
>
>     Research School of Computer Science
>
>     ANU College of Engineering and Computer Science
>
>     Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
>
>     +61 2 6125 8560 <tel:+61%202%206125%208560>
>


-- 
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, 6 February 2017 01:37:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:29 UTC