Re: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91)

Dear Simon, all,

>From my side, it's 'yes' to your second question.

 - if requirement 5.27 [1]  is sufficient to motivate the addition of
actuator/actuation, then requirement 5.16 may be sufficient to motivate the
addition of the Samping side of the system.
 - as far as I know, not all of GoodRelations has been swallowed by
schema.org anyways, and this is managed by the W3C Schema.org Community
Group [2]. So it's not a 'all or nothing' matter there. If Samping is is
SOSA and the schema.org community doesn't want sampling, then it won't make
them reject Actuation.

+1 for Simon to create a wiki page with turtle snippets that explain your
proposal, (potentially multiple options) ?

@Jano, could you also write turtle snippets for your proposed alternative
in the Wiki ?

Kind regards,
Maxime


[1] - https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/#ExSituSampling
[2] - https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg

Le lun. 13 févr. 2017 à 08:14, Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@geog.ucsb.edu> a
écrit :

> Hi Simon, Armin, all,
>
> I fully agree with keeping SOSA as minimalistic as possible. This is a key
> design goal. The changes I proposed are a reaction to issue-91 and other
> change requests and they are minimal in nature by only introducing one
> class and one property. They are also in line with other work on actuators.
> The fact, that such minimal changes were sufficient to address the
> outstanding issues shows that by now SOSA seems to stabilize and is well
> designed. One could even fix these issues by an even more minimalistic
> change, I will implement this tomorrow as alternative.
>
> As far as sampling is concerned, I absolutely agree that Sample needs to
> be in SOSA. Whether it is of equal importance compared to observations and
> actuations is difficult to say. Simon, may I suggest that you create a
> similar example for sampling? If all we need would be just one or two more
> classes, then I would support to add it. Otherwise, we could leave Sample
> in there as stub and add more axioms to the new SSN.
>
> More generally speaking (and leaving the sampling issue aside), my big
> concern is that we will start doing this for 10 more cases, thereby ruining
> the entire idea of a lightweight SOSA. To be very clear about this, I
> created this proposal because I was tasked to do so. I believe that SOSA
> will be fine with said changes (as they are minimal) to better support
> actuation but that SOSA would also remain valuable without these changes.
> If this opens the flood gates to tons of change requests for new classes
> and properties, I would strongly prefer to leave SOSA as is. SOSA was never
> designed to capture all use cases and all details in a balanced way as this
> is the task of the SSN.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jano
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> I will raise the question of Sampling in the core in the discussion around
> Actuation in our next telco.
>
> In terms of Actuation we have several use cases that require actuation:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-ucr/#ModelActuation I believe we need to have a
> strong argument why to not include it in the core.
>
> Personally, I think Actuation should be in SOSA as many IoT applications
> on the Web will include Actuation. Even many of the IoT home devices
> available in Apple Stores include actuation (turning light on, recording
> your favourite show over Siri, Cortana, Amazon Echo, changing the
> thermostat etc.).
>
> On 13/2/17, 11:50 am, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Jano.
>
>     The proposal is exactly in line with expectations.
>
>     However, I am concerned that we should clarify the scope (and size) of
> SOSA. Specifically,
>     1. do the requirements for SOSA include a basic actuation model?
>
>     If that is the case then
>     2. should the Sampling side of the system also need to be fleshed out?
>     I could make a proposal for this, but had been holding back because I
> had assumed that was probably out of scope for most SOSA users, and should
> rather be the subject of a vertical (richer axiomatization) + horizontal
> (additional scope) extension to SOSA.
>
>     In developing SOSA until now we have generally leaned towards
> parsimony - lets minimise the number of concepts in SOSA to a core that
> might be useful to schema.org folk.
>
>     BTW - I'm OK with the answers to these two questions being 1. Yes, and
> 2. No, but wanted to put the issue on the table so we are all clear about
> what is being ruled in, and what is out.
>
>     And just in case there is any question, even if it is "2. No", Sample
> still belongs in SOSA, as it is critical for many (most?) observations.
>     It would just be sampling and sample preparation that would be
> delegated elsewhere.
>
>     Simon
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
>     Sent: Monday, 13 February, 2017 10:50
>     To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> armin.haller@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     Subject: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91)
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I added a wiki pages that shows a concept map for the changes to be
> made on the Actuator and Actuation side of SOSA. The proposed changes
> address some shortcomings of the current model and are also in preparation
> for a deeper axiomatization in SSN.
>
>     There are two major (but in no sense dramatic changes) to SOSA, namely
> a proposal to add the SOSA:actuatedProperty role and a class called
> SOSA:ActuableProperty.  These are in line with previous work and requests
> made on this list.
>
>     I hope you can look at the concept map and the notes on the wiki page
> as I hope we can get this resolved during our next teleconference. Please
> keep in mind that everything that is not shown in a dashed style is already
> part of SOSA.
>
>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation_in_SOSA
>
>     Best,
>     Jano
>
>
>
>
>