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

Hi all,

The term FOI also aligns very well with POI (Point of Interest) and so 
forth. In addition, spatial feature does not have the same 
discriminative power as FOI. For instance, an actuator is a spatial 
feature but the thing it is acting on, e.g., a window, is a FOI (and a 
spatial feature). This does not mean that there is no such case where an 
actuator cannot be a FOI itself. In fact, when its acting is observed by 
a sensor (like a human eye), said actuator becomes a FOI wrt this 
observation and so on.

Cheers,
Jano



On 02/26/2017 02:57 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>
> 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
>     <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>]
>     *Sent:* Sunday, 26 February, 2017 16:36
>     *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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
>


-- 
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