- 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