- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:59:10 -0800
- To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <480afd6c-4997-8898-0e96-a84c5ee5382e@ucsb.edu>
> 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 I would object such change as this closes the door on results that are not from observations (e.g., the actuator work), mixes the idea of a result (getting something back) with the value of what one gets back, and I fail to see how a naming issue can solve the thematic role discussion. Best, Jano On 02/13/2017 08:33 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote: > > 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/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/> > Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net -- 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 Monday, 13 February 2017 16:59:50 UTC