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

ISSUE-148-8 domain-range, Was: Integration of FeatureOfInterest, Property, isPropertyOf, hasProperty, ... and ObservableProperty

From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 10:48:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CALsPASXOYKz0p6YGsW=_KkMNV=eSK1U0M4zEb6M=TpN5xjONpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
This is related to ISSUE-148-8 and pull request
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/536

Kerry said:
> Max said:
> > Note that I removed the domain and range axioms from sosa, but I added
moved them in ssn.  I'd bet Kerry will vote to get them also out from there
in favour of local restrictions :-)
>
> Yep, you guessed right!
> I’m sorry It will take me a while to look more closely.


I removed the rdfs:domain and rdfs:range axioms in commit
 -
https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/536/commits/679e2457f0e201bb635e0626a9f007aa07d47b70

This is reflected back in the pull request.

Kind regards,
Maxime

Le mar. 7 févr. 2017 à 22:30, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
a écrit :

> 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
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 10:48:51 UTC

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