- From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:57:51 +0000
- To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALsPASXxFh9V2sRt5_+asNH69ohhCpin3nXTC2owRMHXjaU8Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi all,
In [1], Kerry you ask:
> Kerry: Is there something we can do in ssnx to say that instances of
oldssn:Property
> only become instances of sosa:ObservableProperty when they are the
> oldssn:observedProperty of an oldssn:Observation? Can we be more careful
in ssnx,
> say, "sosa:ObservableProperty \sqsubseteq \exists oldssn:observedProperty
\union
> \exists observes" ? Does that work?
What you ask is equivalent to saying:
"instances of oldssn:Property that are not oldssn:observedProperty of an
oldssn:Observation are not sosa:ObservableProperty".
We should ask someone to double check, but I think this can be written in
OWL as follows:
[ owl:intersectionOf
( oldssn:Property
[ owl:complementOf [
owl:onProperty oldssn:observedProperty ;
owl:someValuesFrom oldssn:Observation ] ]
) ] rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:complementOf sosa:ObservableProperty ] .
Which 'is' in OWL DL (checked), but is truly frightful.
Otherwise, what about just modifying the definition in oldssn:Property ?
It was
"An observable Quality of an Event or Object. 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 and that is observable by a sensor."
We could change it to:
"A Quality of a FeatureOfInterest. An aspect of an entity that is
intrinsic to and cannot exist without the entity."
Kind regards,
Maxime
Received on Monday, 13 February 2017 17:58:36 UTC