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

Re: Non-dereferencable URIs (was Re: ACTION-255 - o&m alignment)

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 20:32:24 -0800
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au, phila@w3.org, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <734c98f0-6997-734e-4f3c-ef31c4e4cb5c@ucsb.edu>
Simon, have you seen the suggestion below to mint local class and 
property URLs and align them (and use rdfs:isDefinedBy)?

> >I doubt this would be helpful but we could perhaps mint new ones that 
> did dereference and assert >equivalence but that's only worth doing if 
> it provides some functionality that's actually useful.
>
> I had the same (or similar) idea but it was already past 2 pm and we 
> closed the meeting. What we could do is to have an ontology that has 
> dereferencable URIs for all the classes and properties and for each of 
> them would also contain rdfs:isDefinedBy statements that point to the 
> O&M/ISO URIs. rdfs:isDefinedBy explicitly does not put any constraints 
> on such resources, they do not even have to be Web-available 
> (https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_isdefinedby). As a final step, 
> we would establish our mapping axioms in the form of subclass and 
> equivalence class relations from SOSA/SSN to these dereferenceable 
> class and property URLs.



On 02/08/2017 05:05 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 11:25 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
>     > The question is, of course, can TC211 be encouraged to make
>     things like http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/ dereferencable?
>     If it helps, we'd happily host the relevant data to which those
>     URIs could redirect (I'm sure OGC and others would too of course).
>
>     I raised this with Jean Brodeur, who is the primary custodian of
>     the GitHub repository. There is certainly an interest in making
>     these things dereferencable.
>
>     The blockers are
>     - resourcing
>     - limited DNS/HTTP knitting expertise,
>     - relationship with the ISO/TC 211 secretariat, which recently
>     moved from Norway to Sweden.
>
>     We were careful to use the def.isotc211.org
>     <http://def.isotc211.org> domain so as not to get tangled up with
>     iso.org <http://iso.org>.
>     But we still have to work with the Swedes, who we don't know so
>     well yet.
>
>     Practically, there is also the matter of where the actual
>     resources would be hosted.
>     Is
>     raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156
>     <http://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOntology/19156>
>     acceptable?
>     And, while I could work with Jean to get .ttl versions put
>     alongside, I'm not sure that anything much more sophisticated than
>     that could be expected any time soon.
>
>     > I doubt this would be helpful but we could perhaps mint new ones
>     that did dereference and assert equivalence but that's only worth
>     doing if it provides some functionality that's actually useful.
>
>     I'd be reluctant to head that direction. As I mentioned on the
>     call and in my documentation, URIs in the def.isotc211.org
>     <http://def.isotc211.org> domain are specified in ISO 19150-2, so
>     putting another fa├žade in front is really just obfuscation.
>
>     Realistically getting the def.isotc211.org
>     <http://def.isotc211.org> URIs to dereference is likely to take
>     months rather than weeks, but I think it is plausible, and if we
>     are OK with using them as identifiers in the meantime then it is
>     all defensible in the short term and there would be no
>     discontinuity in the long.
>
>     Simon
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org <mailto:phila@w3.org>]
>     Sent: Wednesday, 8 February, 2017 17:48
>     To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
>     public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>     Subject: Non-dereferencable URIs (was Re: ACTION-255 - o&m alignment)
>
>     I'm sorry I wasn't able to speak about this on the call. By the
>     time this topic came up I was being driven along the road and had
>     insufficient bandwidth to un-mute myself although I could hear the
>     conversation.
>
>     Of course dereferencable URIs are preferred over
>     non-dereferencable ones. However, this should not be seen as an
>     absolute requirement or diktat. If there are good reasons to use
>     non-dereferencable URIs - and it sounded to me as if Simon was
>     making a very strong case for their use
>     - and if the non-dereferencable state causes no harm, then go ahead.
>
>     The question is, of course, can TC211 be encouraged to make things
>     like http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/ dereferencable? If it
>     helps, we'd happily host the relevant data to which those URIs
>     could redirect (I'm sure OGC and others would too of course).
>
>     I doubt this would be helpful but we could perhaps mint new ones
>     that did dereference and assert equivalence but that's only worth
>     doing if it provides some functionality that's actually useful.
>
>     Phil
>
>
>
>     On 07/02/2017 22:26, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>     > I've dropped it into a Wiki page here (formatting not yet complete).
>     >
>     > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Alignment_to_O%26M
>     >
>     > This should help with your namespace and prefix questions Laurent.
>     >
>     > From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>     <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>]
>     > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February, 2017 08:35
>     > To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>     > Subject: [ExternalEmail] RE: ACTION-255 - o&m alignment
>     >
>     > If you are unable to see the section in the HTML in the branch,
>     here is the proposed text:
>     >
>     > -----------------------
>     >
>     > 8. Alignment to Observations and Measurements
>     >
>     > This section introduces the alignment of SOSA/SSN to OGC
>     Observations and Measurements [OandM] (also known as ISO 19156:2011).
>     >
>     > O&M is specified as a UML model, following the patterns
>     specified in ISO 19109 Geographic Information - Rules for
>     Application Schema [ISO-19109]. This means that the classes
>     represent concepts from the application domain, so can be
>     approximately equated with classes in an ontology.
>     >
>     > Two OWL implementations of O&M have been described:
>     >
>     > an explicit translation of the UML following the rules specified in
>     > [ISO-19150-2] - see [OM-Heavy]; and a handcrafted version in
>     more idiomatic OWL [OM-Lite].
>     > The following sections provide two mappings or alignments
>     between SOSA/SSN and O&M: the first with the official ISO/OGC UML
>     conceptual model, and the second with the lightweight OWL
>     implementation.
>     >
>     > 8.1 Alignment to Observations and Measurements UML model
>     >
>     > This section is non-normative.
>     >
>     > The explicit translation generates an RDF entity for every
>     class, class attribute, and association-role from the original O&M
>     UML model. It comes at a cost of a large set of dependencies on
>     similar OWL translations of other UML models from the ISO 19100
>     series. Nevertheless, the URI for each RDF entity is a convenient
>     identifier to elements of the UML model. These can be used to
>     identify the elements of O&M in a formal RDF/OWL alignment.
>     >
>     > Rules for generating the URIs are provided in [ISO-19150-2], and
>     appear in the official OWL implementation of ISO 19156 (O&M)
>     maintained by the ISO/TC 211 Group on Ontology Management.
>     >
>     > The following namespace prefixes are used in the alignment to SOSA.
>     >
>     > Prefix   Namespace
>     > sosa: http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/
>     > sosa-om: http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa-om#
>     > iso19156-gfi:
>     http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/GeneralFeatureInstance#
>     > iso19156-om: http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/Observation#
>     > iso19156-sf: http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/SamplingFeature#
>     > iso19156-sfs:
>     http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/SpatialSamplingFeature#
>     > iso19156-sp: http://def.isotc211.org/iso19156/2011/Specimen#
>     > Utility classes
>     >
>     > Five utiity classes are defined locally to support the
>     formalization of the alignment.
>     >
>     > 1. Three disjoint subclasses of sosa:Procedure:
>     >
>     > sosa-om:ActuationProcedure Actuation procedures or recipes
>     > sosa-om:ObservationProcedure         Observation procedures or
>     recipes
>     > sosa-om:SamplingProcedure  Sampling, sample preparation or
>     processing
>     > procedures or recipes 2. Two classes related to sampling, which
>     complement SOSA classes related to actuation and observation:
>     >
>     > sosa-om:SamplingDevice        Sampling, sample preparation or
>     processing devices, comparable to sosa:Actuator and sosa:Sensor
>     > sosa-om:SamplingEvent          Sampling, sample preparation or
>     processing event or act, comparable to sosa:Actuation and
>     sosa:Observation
>     > Class alignments
>     >
>     > The primary classes from [OandM] have direct equivalents in SOSA
>     classes supplemented by the utility classes described above, as
>     follows:
>     >
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation          equivalent class    
>     sosa:Observation
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Process      equivalent class sosa:Sensor or
>     sosa-om:ObservationProcedure
>     > iso19156_sf:SF_SamplingFeature       equivalent class      
>     sosa:Sample
>     > iso19156-sf:SF_Process           equivalent class  
>     sosa-om:SamplingDevice or sosa-om:SamplingProcedure
>     > Additional alignments from SOSA/SSN classes to O&M classes are
>     as follows.
>     >
>     > sosa:FeatureOfInterest           subclass of
>      iso19156_gfi:GFI_DomainFeature
>     > where iso19156_gfi:GFI_DomainFeature has the definition:
>     >
>     > The class GFI_DomainFeature represents 'real-world' features
>     which are the ultimate subject of an observation campaign, i.e.
>     the features from an application domain that are not artefacts of
>     the observation process (sampling features).
>     > sosa:Actuator  subclass of       iso19156_gfi:GFI_Feature
>     > sosa:Platform  subclass of       iso19156_gfi:GFI_Feature
>     > where iso19156_gfi:GFI_Feature has the definition
>     >
>     > The class GFI_Feature represents the set of all classes which
>     are feature types. In an implementation this abstract class shall
>     be substituted by a concrete class representing a feature type
>     from an application schema associated with a domain of discourse
>     (ISO 19109, ISO 19101).
>     > Property alignments
>     >
>     > The following properties from [OandM] have direct equivalents in
>     SOSA properties:
>     >
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation.featureOfInterest  equivalent
>     property    sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation.observedProperty    equivalent
>     property    sosa:observedProperty
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation.phenomenonTime    equivalent
>     property    sosa:phenomenonTime
>     > iso19156-sf:SF_SamplingFeature.sampledFeature equivalent
>     property    sosa:isSampleOf
>     > Additional alignments from O&M properties to SOSA are as follows.
>     >
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation.procedure    sub-property of        
>      sosa:usedProcedure
>     > iso19156-sp:SF_Specimen.samplingMethod  sub-property of        
>      sosa:usedProcedure
>     > These alignments are modeled as sub-properties because
>     sosa:usedProcedure applies to actuation, observation or sampling
>     activities.
>     >
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation.result            sub-property of   
>            sosa:hasResult
>     > iso19156-om:OM_Observation.resultTime    sub-property of        
>      sosa:resultTime
>     > iso19156-sp:SF_Specimen.samplingTime       sub-property of     
>          sosa:resultTime
>     > iso19156-sp:PreparationStep.time     sub-property of    
>      sosa:resultTime
>     > These alignments are modeled as sub-properties because
>     sosa:hasResult and sosa:resultTime applies to actuation,
>     observation or sampling activities.
>     >
>     > iso19156-sfs:SF_SpatialSamplingFeature.hostedProcedure
>      sub-property of           sosa:hosts
>     > These alignments are modeled as a sub-property because the
>     domain of iso19156-sfs:SF_SpatialSamplingFeature.hostedProcedure
>     is a spatial sampling feature, such as a station, rather than a
>     more general platform.
>     >
>     > An RDF file containing a graph corresponding to this alignment
>     is available.
>     >
>     > 8.2 Alignment to om-lite implementation of Observations and
>     > Measurements
>     >
>     > This section is non-normative.
>     >
>     > An idiomatic OWL implementation of O&M (including Sampling
>     Features) is described in [OM-Lite].
>     >
>     > The following namespace prefixes are used in the alignment to SOSA.
>     >
>     > Prefix   Namespace
>     > sosa: http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/
>     > sosa-oml: http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa-oml#
>     > oml: http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite#
>     > samfl: http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/sam-lite#
>     > Utility classes
>     >
>     > Five utiity classes are defined locally to support the
>     formalization of the alignment.
>     >
>     > 1. Three disjoint subclasses of sosa:Procedure:
>     >
>     > sosa-oml:ActuationProcedure Actuation procedures or recipes
>     > sosa-oml:ObservationProcedure        Observation procedures or
>     recipes
>     > sosa-oml:SamplingProcedure Sampling, sample preparation or
>     processing
>     > procedures or recipes 2. Two classes related to sampling, which
>     complement SOSA classes related to actuation and observation:
>     >
>     > sosa-oml:SamplingDevice       Sampling, sample preparation or
>     processing devices, comparable to sosa:Actuator and sosa:Sensor
>     > sosa-oml:SamplingEvent         Sampling, sample preparation or
>     processing event or act, comparable to sosa:Actuation and
>     sosa:Observation
>     > Class alignments
>     >
>     > The primary classes from [OM-Lite] have direct equivalents in
>     SOSA classes supplemented by the utility classes described above,
>     as follows:
>     >
>     > oml:Observation         equivalent class sosa:Observation
>     > oml:Process     equivalent class          sosa:Sensor or
>     sosa-om:ObservationProcedure
>     > samfl:SamplingFeature           equivalent class sosa:Sample
>     > samfl:Process  equivalent class sosa-om:SamplingDevice or
>     sosa-om:SamplingProcedure
>     > Property alignments
>     >
>     > The following properties from [OM-Lite] have direct equivalents
>     in SOSA properties:
>     >
>     > oml:featureOfInterest equivalent property sosa:hasFeatureOfInterest
>     > oml:observedProperty            equivalent property
>     sosa:observedProperty
>     > oml:phenomenonTime           equivalent property sosa:phenomenonTime
>     > samfl:sampledFeature            equivalent property sosa:isSampleOf
>     > Additional alignments from [OM-Lite] properties to SOSA are as
>     follows.
>     >
>     > oml:procedure            sub-property of  sosa:usedProcedure
>     > samfl:samplingMethod           sub-property of  sosa:usedProcedure
>     > These alignments are modeled as sub-properties because
>     sosa:usedProcedure applies to actuation, observation or sampling
>     activities.
>     >
>     > oml:result        sub-property of  sosa:hasResult
>     > oml:resultTime           sub-property of  sosa:resultTime
>     > samfl:samplingTime   sub-property of  sosa:resultTime
>     > These alignments are modeled as sub-properties because
>     sosa:hasResult and sosa:resultTime applies to actuation,
>     observation or sampling activities.
>     >
>     > samfl:hostedProcedure           sub-property of  sosa:hosts
>     > These alignments are modeled as a sub-property because the
>     domain of iso19156-sfs:SF_SpatialSamplingFeature.hostedProcedure
>     is a spatial sampling feature, such as a station, rather than a
>     more general platform.
>     >
>     > An RDF file containing a graph corresponding to this alignment
>     is available.
>     >
>     >
>     > From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)
>     > Sent: Tuesday, 7 February, 2017 15:58
>     > To: 'Simon.Cox@csiro.au'
>     > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>     <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>>;
>     > public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org><mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
>     > Subject: RE: ACTION-255 - o&m alignment
>     >
>     > Note that this mapping is only from SOSA to O&M (and om-lite).
>     >
>     > I also intend to look at the mapping from 'SSN' (i.e. the
>     vertical axiomatization/extension) of SOSA for observations and
>     sensing through to O&M. Much of the intended alignment was
>     captured in annotations in the original ontology, but the
>     discussions in the last week suggest that some local-names might
>     change else SOSA classes and properties used in place of old SSN
>     equivalents. When this has settled down a comprehensive mapping
>     should be formulated.
>     >
>     > Probably the key question arising from the work mentioned below
>     is whether the proposal to use the URIs that are specified in the
>     translation of the UML model to OWL, following the ISO 19150-2
>     rules, is acceptable.
>     >
>     > Pro:
>     >
>     > -          It allows us to express the alignment formally within
>     the idiom we are working in (OWL)
>     > Cons:
>     >
>     > -          The OWL version of O&M is not in itself published as
>     a 'standard' and the URIs are not directly resolvable (yet, anyway)
>     >
>     > o   However, as pointed out in the document, the URIs are
>     persistent identifiers in the view of ISO, and the fact that ISO's
>     process does not require a separate document for the OWL
>     implementation should be OK for us
>     >
>     > -          UML and OWL are so different in their assumptions
>     that it is a fallacy to use the OWL implementation as representing
>     the UML model
>     >
>     > I'm sure there are other arguments. My feeling is that the
>     proposed approach balances formality and pragmatism OK.
>     >
>     > Simon
>     >
>     > From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>     <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
>     > [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>]
>     > Sent: Saturday, 28 January, 2017 21:33
>     > To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org><mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
>     > Subject: [ExternalEmail] ACTION-255 - o&m alignment
>     >
>     > In response to my ACTION-255 from last week's meeting, I have
>     generated two RDF files containing formal alignments between SOSA
>     and O&M.
>     >
>     > -          sosa-om-mapping.ttl relates to the O&M UML model, and
>     uses the Official ISO URIs from the OWL implementation prepared by
>     the ISO/TC 211 Group on Ontology Management following the rules
>     from ISO 19150-2
>     >
>     > -          sosa-oml-mapping.ttl relates to the om-lite and
>     sam-lite OWL implementation recently published in Semantic Web Journal
>     >
>     > I have also prepared text for the SSN document describing these
>     mappings - for chapter 8 in the spec.
>     > So far the mappings only concern SOSA.
>     >
>     > I've pushed all this into a branch in GitHub
>     > https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/simon-ssn-O%26M-alignments/ssn
>     > and issued a pull-request https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/516
>     >
>     > Simon
>     >
>     > Simon J D Cox
>     > Research Scientist
>     > Environmental Informatics
>     > CSIRO Land and Water<http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>
>     >
>     > E simon.cox@csiro.au<mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au
>     <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au>> T +61 3 9545 2365
>     <tel:%2803%29%209545%202365> M +61 403 302 672 <tel:0403%20302%20672>
>     >    Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
>     >    Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
>     >    Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
>     > people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox
>     <http://people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox><http://people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox>
>     > orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
>     <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420><http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
>     > researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
>     <http://researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3><https://www.researchgate.net/profi
>     > le/Simon_Cox3>
>     > github.com/dr-shorthair
>     <http://github.com/dr-shorthair><https://github.com/dr-shorthair>
>     >
>     > PLEASE NOTE
>     > The information contained in this email may be confidential or
>     privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If
>     you have received this email in error, please delete it
>     immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To
>     the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant
>     and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been
>     maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus,
>     interception or interference.
>     >
>     > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>
>
>     Phil Archer
>     Data Strategist, W3C
>     http://www.w3.org/
>
>     http://philarcher.org
>     +44 (0)7887 767755 <tel:+44%207887%20767755>
>     @philarcher1
>


-- 
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 Thursday, 9 February 2017 04:33:02 UTC

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