- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:09:47 -0800
- To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> This afternoon, when taking a look at the wiki, I didn't even have > sure what we were going to vote, since in the figure a lot of things > appear beyond the basic discussion such as the relationship of > actuators with platforms or the time-related properties. Just for clarification, everything that was not dashed was/is in SOSA already. On 02/14/2017 12:32 PM, Raúl García Castro wrote: > Dear Krzysztof, > > I have to agree and disagree with you. > > I also think that we must take decisions one by one, and that is what > Maxime is trying to do by identifying the atomic decisions we have to > make. > > This afternoon, when taking a look at the wiki, I didn't even have > sure what we were going to vote, since in the figure a lot of things > appear beyond the basic discussion such as the relationship of > actuators with platforms or the time-related properties. > > Besides, being SOSA the core module of SSN, it is a need to put any > decision in the broad context of SSN (even if taking decisions on SSN > come later in the backlog. > > Kind regards, > > El 14/2/17 a las 20:50, Krzysztof Janowicz escribió: >> Maxime, >> >> Thanks a LOT for doing all this, but you are moving a bit too fast :-). >> The idea was to discuss and take decisions step-by-step, if we combine >> different topics into larger and larger bundles, it will be difficult to >> make decisions. Let's keep the individual issues and proposed solutions >> as atomic as possible :-). See also my mail about feature creep. The >> wiki page was only designed for the SOSA part. We can (and probably >> should) add more on actuators and actuation into SSN, but we should not >> try to add all of this into SOSA. >> >> Cheers, >> Jano >> >> On 02/14/2017 11:41 AM, Maxime Lefrançois wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I added some content to the wiki >>> page >>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation>https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation >>> : >>> >>> nine questions and the currently proposed options. I think we can vote >>> for some today, but there is obviously some things one need to agree >>> on quite urgently. >>> >>> Question 1: ok for a complete actuator/actuation/xxxProperty model in >>> sosa? ok to reflect this in snn? >>> Question 2: naming of xxxProperty >>> Question 3: naming of the link between Actuation and xxxProperty >>> Question 4: naming of invoked/invokedBy vs madeObservation/?? >>> Question 5: Result and Command ? >>> Question 6: phenomenonTime and resultTime >>> Question 7: axioms in SSN >>> Question 8: measurement properties in SSN >>> Question 9: operating properties in SSN >>> >>> For now there is currently no turtle snippet or pull request for each >>> of the proposed options, so I believe we can only vote for Question 1 >>> today. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Maxime >>> >>> Le mar. 14 févr. 2017 à 20:01, Maxime Lefrançois >>> <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> a >>> écrit : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I added some answers to Kerry's questions in the wiki page >>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Actuation >>> >>> >>> These are copied here: >>> >>> /Kerry: can we reconsider the names please? "actsOnProperty" (from >>> SEAS) instead of "actuatedProperty" (does not follow active >>> property naming convention, is not English)/ >>> >>> /- Maxime: +1 for "sosa:actsOnProperty/sosa:isActedOnBy" and >>> "sosa:observesProperty/sosa:isObservedBy", for the sake of having >>> consistent naming conventions./ >>> >>> /Kerry: ActuableProperty is also not English. What is meant here? >>> Perhaps an explanation of the concept would help to choose the >>> term. SEAS uses "Property" which suits me, but I guess we are >>> stuck in a pattern since we have "ObservableProperty elsewhere. >>> SAN uses ImpactedProperty which is certainly better, and that >>> would also suggest actuatedProperty could be 'impacts'. Or, better >>> still (becuase impacts is too forceful, in general) how about >>> "affects" and "AffectedProperty"/ >>> >>> /- Maxime: related emails in the >>> list: >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0335.html<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0338.html>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0338.html >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0339.html ./ >>> >>> /- Maxime: propose: "sosa:ActionableProperty"/ >>> >>> /Kerry: What is a Phenomenontime in this context? As distinct from >>> a ResultTime? Why do we need it?/ >>> >>> /- Maxime: AFAIK, resultTime can be later than phenomenonTime. As >>> an example in the spec, maybe we could use the example of an >>> astronomical telescope that outputs today some phenomenon that >>> occurred many years ago?/ >>> >>> /Kerry: What is the impact on SSN?/ >>> >>> /- Maxime: should we duplicate any axiom that exists for >>> Observation and adapt it for Actuation?/ >>> >>> /- Maxime: should we decide which of the MeasurementProperty can >>> also apply to Actuators? As a first guess, I would say Accuracy, >>> ActuationLimit, Drift, Frequency, Latency, Precision, Resolution, >>> ResponseTime, all apply to Actuation/ >>> >>> /- Maxime: I believe all of the OperatingProperties also apply to >>> Actuators./ >>> >>> / >>> / >>> >>> / >>> / >>> >>> Best, >>> Maxime >>> >>> Le lun. 13 févr. 2017 à 10:55, Maxime Lefrançois >>> <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> a >>> écrit : >>> >>> 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 <http://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 <http://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 >>> <<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>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 >>> <<mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>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>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 <http://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:<mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>janowicz@ucsb.edu] >>> Sent: Monday, 13 February, 2017 10:50 >>> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) >>> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; >>> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>armin.haller@anu.edu.au; >>> public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > -- 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 Tuesday, 14 February 2017 21:10:24 UTC