W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Forecasts and observations - was I RE: SSN Thread for github issue 378 - Side effects of ssn:Observation being a kind of dul:Event instead of dul:Situation

From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:56:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CALsPASWZ1DgxB2XJfrBCPnx2hvBR3Qc5Wv7R2oJjgVc953uPZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
+1 for what you suggest Kerry.
And I suggest we document this conceptual change in a skos:changeNote
attached to oldssn:Observation.
Kind regards,
Maxime


Le mar. 21 févr. 2017 à 12:33, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> a
écrit :

> SSN-people,
>
> I am trying to close off this subject as originally posed – and without
> diverting into  the bigger issue of forecasts and observations. It relates
> to solving issue-62 and issue-67 (how does ssn:observation get re-worked as
> an activity/act?)
>
>
>
>
>
> (1) Please see the conversation thread here.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0089.html
>
>
>
>
>
> (2) it was rooted in Maxime’s observation that
>
>
>
>         ssn:Observation rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty dul:includesEvent
> ; owl:someValuesFrom ssn:Stimulus ] .
>
>
>
> and Maxime’s suggestion (among others that were discussed extensively) that
>
>
>
> Ø  should this axiom be simply deleted from the SSN-DUL alignment ?
>
>
>
> (3) I propose that we do exactly as posed here --- that is, delete the
> axiom ssn:Observation rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty dul:includesEvent
> ; owl:someValuesFrom ssn:Stimulus ]
>
> from
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/dul-alignment.owl
>
>
>
> (4) figure 5.9 here may help understanding
> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/
>
>
>
> (5) I don’t think  deleting the axiom creates a big problem as the
> Stimulus can still be reached from the Observation via the Sensor that
> observed it and Stimulus it detects. And if there is an issue with sensors
> detecting multiple stimuli (which ssn allows) and so we would not know
> which stimulus was involved in the observation (which can happen), then
> someone using ssn is going to have to work harder and define a fresh sensor
> for each distinct stimulus if they need this.
>
>
>
> (6) What to do with the alignment to old ssn? The change to the dul
> alignment of Observation itself is already problematic :
>
> ssn:Observation<http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Observation> becomes a kind of dul:Event<http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Event> instead of a dul:Situation
>
>
>
> So… I don’t think we can align old and new ssn in an ontology fragment for
> this. I propose that the best we can do is explain the change in
> documentation. Any better idea?
>
>
>
> Does anyone object to this path forward?
>
>
>
> -Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 11:56:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:58 UTC