RE: hasResult / Sampling in SOSA & ISSUE-90

I also prefer option 3, with some suggested changes. Most importantly that we use the term “ObservationValue” instead of “Result”. This is much better for backward compatibility (it was what ssn always used) and solves the “role” con that is raised too., and better complies with sensorML’s “observed value”.  “Result” is too generic. Please see comments on the wiki. https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Value


Btw – option 3 is incomplete as it is presented on the wiki.

-Kerry
From: Armin Haller
Sent: Monday, 13 February 2017 9:50 AM
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu; Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>; Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au; danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: hasResult / Sampling in SOSA & ISSUE-90

Yes, Option 3 will be the one I will put forward as a Proposal in our next teleconference. There was no objection yet on the list.

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Reply-To: "janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>
Date: Monday, 13 February 2017 at 9:09 am
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au<mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr<mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, "danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de<mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de<mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>
Subject: Re: hasResult / Sampling in SOSA & ISSUE-90

Looking at the comments and reactions so far, option 3 seems to be the favorite, right? Put differently, so far nobody called option 3 a deal-breaker.

[I am *not* implying any kind of formal vote here and I am not assuming that these comments imply a decision by the group. I am just trying to coordinate my actuation part with the observation part to keep them in sync and that would work well if we use option 3.]

On 02/10/2017 01:57 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

+1

Roles as classes in a polymorphic sense works.

Just noting that in the xml world the o&m placeholders worked but caused significant challenges (i.e. needed an explicit mechanism to map implementation types into these placeholders - i.e  the role needed to be handled outside the schema mechanism.

Rob

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, 1:17 AM Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr<mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> wrote:
Hi Simon,


> Result is a role, not a proper class

Yes, I agree. In O&M we left it as a wildcard, and that was when dealing only with observation results, which are at least only 'values'!

In SOSA the scope is explicitly increased to include Actuation and Sampling, the results of which are less clear. As mentioned in my mail earlier this week, the result of a sampling activity is primarily a new (or transformed) sample. Actuation usually changes the value of some property so is probably closer to the observation/sensing world.

Using OWL it is quite reasonable to model roles as classes. So I guess I would see sosa:Result as being a superclass of (at least) sosa:Sample and ssn:ObservationValue.

So preferably 3 than 4 for you ?

I added a section "proposed implem" for solution 3. Can you check this reflects your proposal ?

Kind regards,
Maxime



-----Original Message-----
From: Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>]
Sent: Friday, 10 February, 2017 11:18
To: Le Phuoc, Danh <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de<mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au><mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>; Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>>; Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr<mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>
Subject: Re: hasResult / Sampling in SOSA & ISSUE-90

Thanks Danh for your detailed analysis of the Observation Value issue! I have added Option Numbers to the Wiki, to make it easier to refer to them.

I encourage everyone to look at the current proposals. As far as I can tell from previous discussions on the list several group members prefer Option 3, collapsing the property path in SOSA (and also in SSN) and not offering a hasValue relation. This also aligns to the decisions made in our best practices document. It also follows the Pareto principle.

I will watch the ensuing discussion and if there is a compromise emerging on the list, I will also try to put this issue for vote in our next meeting.

On 10/2/17, 2:07 am, "Le Phuoc, Danh" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de<mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>> wrote:

    Hi all,

    As requested from Armin to outline a solution for attach values to observations as a part of the solution mentioned in this issue: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/90, I  created a Wiki page at https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Value with some figures to illustrate the possible patterns : collapsing or not collapsing ssn:SensorOutput and ssn:ObservationValue.

    I’m trying to collecting inputs/proposals from previous minutes to populate the wiki page but I got lost. I would appreciate if you could point me to your proposals in the minutes or even better put them directly to the Wiki so that I could consolidate them before the next call.

    Best,

    Danh







--

Krzysztof Janowicz



Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara

4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060



Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/


Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net