- From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 07:44:11 +0100
- Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hi, In the Web of Things IG, three interaction patterns (involving data interchanges) have been defined (not in any specification): https://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices.html#interaction-patterns * Property (readable and/or writeable data) * Action (changes or processes on a Thing that take a certain time to complete) * Event (mechanisms to be notified by a Thing on a certain condition) We can align with their terminology using: Actuator, Action, ActionableProperty. Also, related to the discussion on what is the result of an Actuation, such result will depend on how the interaction is designed. I quote from the same document: "Usually, invoking an Action results in a response that indicates a new (sub-)resource, where the started Task can be monitored and also controlled". Kind regards, El 15/2/17 a las 0:00, Armin Haller escribió: > Actuatable as suggested by Josh earlier seems to be a widely-used term, > even included in some dictionaries (not “yet” Oxford/Cambridge) and > results in close to a million hits on Google: > https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=actuatable > > > > > > *From: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> > *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2017 at 9:35 am > *To: *Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr" > <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "jano@geog.ucsb.edu" <jano@geog.ucsb.edu>, > "janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu> > *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Subject: *RE: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91) > > > > My apologies. No offence intended. Just lazy word selection on my part > before my morning coffee. > > > > Rephrasing: > > And giving the deliberate impression they are the same by making up > non-English names to make them “look” the same at the surface level > does not make any sense to me. > > > > Someone has suggested “Actionable” and someone else “Actuatable” > --these are both very much preferable IMHO (with the first much better > than the second). > > -Kerry > > > > > > > > *From:*Armin Haller > *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 February 2017 7:54 AM > *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au; > maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr; jano@geog.ucsb.edu; janowicz@ucsb.edu > *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91) > > > > Please, Kerry, you need to stop using words like “silly”. Group members > are offended by this. > > > > *From: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> > *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2017 at 7:48 am > *To: *"Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>, > "maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>" > <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>, > "jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>" <jano@geog.ucsb.edu > <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>>, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au > <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>, "janowicz@ucsb.edu > <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>" <janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>> > *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" > <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>> > *Subject: *RE: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91) > > > > I’m sorry I have to disagree with making up a new word (and such an ugly > one – although I admit that is totally a personal reaction). There are > plenty of good English words out there for what we are trying to explain > here. We are doing no service to anyone to invent such a meaningless new > term. What is wrong with looking at previous work in this area? What is > wrong with a nice useful word like “affects” that seems to carry the > right idea (I suppose, assuming I ‘get’ the right idea). > > > > Ø We need similar concepts for actuation. > > > Not sure…. Could we please see an explanation for this idea, and some > worked examples ? Most ideally with reference to our own use cases! > > > > Let’s not get too carried away with the idea actuation is just like > observation –that might be true at a surface level but certainly is not > with deeper analysis. And “pretending” they are the same by making up > silly names to make them “look” the same at the surface level does not > make any sense to me. > > > > Of course, SENSORML also has something to say in this area. Should we > ignore it? And if so, why? > > > > -Kerry > > > > *From:*Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 February 2017 6:55 AM > *To:* maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>; > jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>; Armin Haller > <armin.haller@anu.edu.au <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>; > janowicz@ucsb.edu <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu> > *Cc:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; > public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Subject:* RE: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91) > > > >> 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" > > In all this we need to preserve the distinction between the class name > and definition, and the associated property name and definition. For > observations we distinguish Observable Properties - i.e. potentially > observable by sensors - from observed properties - i.e. actually > observed in an observation. A set of *observable* properties might be > published in a list or register, for re-use in multiple observation > instances, where their role becomes *observed*. > > We need similar concepts for actuation. > > And yes, "actuable" is a new word, but is clearly related to existing > English and new coinages for specific purposes are nothing new in > technical contexts. Actionable may be an acceptable alternative, though > to me it does not carry quite the same meaning. > > Simon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr > <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, 14 February 2017 7:01:44 PM > *To:* Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller; Krzysztof Janowicz > *Cc:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton); public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Actuation and Actuators in SOSA (issue-91) > > > > 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.htmlhttps://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 > <jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto: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 > <armin.haller@anu.edu.au <mailto: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 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 > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto: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:janowicz@ucsb.edu > <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>] > Sent: Monday, 13 February, 2017 10:50 > To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>; armin.haller@anu.edu.au > <mailto: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 > > > > > -- Dr. Raúl García Castro http://www.garcia-castro.com/ Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 06:44:47 UTC