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

Re: BP & SSN: feature of interest vs spatial thing

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 10:57:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9Lw4puENjxtVFH7YXAgh072TFgqRsBxxeBLJWQ4sRVQQZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Foi  is not necessarily spatial... i might be observing average power
consumption of a type of light bulb... make it Thing but not SpatialThing
if you must.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2017, 5:35 PM <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Please note that ‘Feature’ was never an O&M (ISO 19156) concept per se. It
> comes from the ISO 19101 Reference Model.
>
>
>
> The relevant terms in the O&M spec were
>
> -          A property (rolename) ‘featureOfInterest’ to link an
> Observation to the thing whose property-value is being estimated
>
> -          A Class GFI_Feature, which is an instantiation of the
> meta-class GF_Feature, taken from ISO 19109.
>
>
>
> The name of the property feature-of-interest was a topic of considerable
> discussion during the development of O&M. It was originally called ‘target’
> but this was changed in discussions around 2005 at the specific request of
> some of the project sponsors, whose affiliation with the D&I industry and
> community made them a little sensitive around that term …
>
>
>
> “feature-of-interest” was chosen to align with the 19101 terminology, but
> seems to have stood up well in consultations with many communities.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 26 February, 2017 16:36
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* BP & SSN: feature of interest vs spatial thing
>
>
>
> SDWers,
>
> I note that BP has moved away from the O&M concept of “feature” towards
> “spatial thing” instead – yet in SSN we are using  O&M’s  “Feature of
> Interest “ with the following 2 descriptions:
>
>
>
> (1) sosa:FeatureOfInterest:  “The thing whose property is being estimated
> or calculated in the course of an Observation to arrive at a Result or
> whose property is being manipulated by an Actuator”
>
> AND
>
> (2) Ssn:FeatureOfInterest: “A feature is an abstraction of real world phenomena (thing, person,  event, etc)”.
>
>
>
> Formally, ssn traditionally defined it simply as an Event or Object.
>
>
>
> *What do those in the BP space think about this?* In ssn I don’t think we
> even care whether the thing being observed  has a geometry, but indeed
> “Feature” used in the context of ssn inherits all the same problems that
> the BP documents. *Should we use “Spatial thing” as a way of lining up
> with BP?*
>
> A short extract from current BP draft follows:
>
> To avoid confusion, we adopt the term “spatial thing
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatial-thing>” throughout the
> remainder of this best practice document. “Spatial thing
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatial-thing>” is defined in [
> W3C-BASIC-GEO <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-W3C-BASIC-GEO>] as
> “Anything with spatial extent, i.e. size, shape, or position. e.g. people,
> places, bowling balls, as well as abstract areas like cubes”.
>
> The concept of “spatial thing
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatial-thing>” is considered to
> include *both* "real-world phenomena" *and* their abstractions (e.g. “
> feature <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-feature>” as defined in [
> ISO-19101 <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-ISO-19101>]). Furthermore, we
> treat it as inclusive of other commonly used definitions; e.g. *Feature*
> from [NeoGeo <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#bib-NeoGeo>], described as “A
> geographical feature, capable of holding spatial relations”.…….
>
> Looking more closely, it is important to note that geometry is typically a
> property of a spatial thing
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp/#dfn-spatial-thing>.
>
>
>
> -Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2017 11:04:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:30 UTC