Integration of FeatureOfInterest, Property, isPropertyOf, hasProperty, ... and ObservableProperty

Dear all,

I showcased the methodology on the four first terms of the list, this has
been added to the pull request:
 - https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/536

please see the additional questions that are raised in:
 - https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/541


There are:

3 TODOs to check in sosa.ttl:

sosa:FeatureOfInterest skos:definition """The feature whose Property is
being observed by a Sensor to arrive at a Result."""@en ; # TODO: check.
Too restrictive for SOSA to be extended to Actuators ?

sosa:hasProperty skos:definition """Relation between a FeatureOfInterest
and an ObservableProperty of that feature."""@en ; # TODO: check
ObservableProperty in the definition. Too restrictive ?

sosa:isPropertyOf skos:definition """Relation between an ObservableProperty
(a Quality observable by a sensor) and the FeatureOfInterest it belongs
to."""@en ; # TODO: check ObservableProperty in the definition. Too
restrictive ?



and 6 TODOs to check in ssn.ttl

sosa:FeatureOfInterest rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty sosa:hasProperty ;
owl:allValuesFrom sosa:ObservableProperty ] . # TODO: check.

ssn:Property skos:definition """A Quality of an Event or Object that is
observable, actuable, or ... That is, not a Quality of an abstract entity,
but rather an aspect of an entity that is intrinsic to and cannot exist
without the entity."""@en ; # TODO: check, this is a proposal.

sosa:ObservableProperty rdfs:subClassOf ssn:Property . # TODO: check this
does solve ISSUE-87

sosa:isPropertyOf a owl:FunctionalProperty ; # TODO: check, this is a
proposal.
  rdfs:comment """A property belongs to exactly one feature of
interest."""@en ;
  rdfs:domain sosa:ObservableProperty ; # TODO: check, this is a proposal.
  rdfs:range sosa:FeatureOfInterest . # TODO: check, this is a proposal.


Note that I removed the domain and range axioms from sosa, but I moved them
in ssn. I'd bet Kerry will vote to get them also out from there in favor of
local restrictions :-)


I'm personally unhappy with the mentions of observable property in the
current definitions, I'm looking forward for some proposal there.

Kind regards,
Maxime