- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:02:43 -0800
- To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
- Cc: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> (i) a strong recommendation that properties should be defined and names carefully to allow them to be re-used on different feature types Yes, that is certainly very important. Many of the most common properties are not unique to any specific feature of interest and its type @Maxime. Just to understand the motivating for the way you guys did it in SEAS wrt your code below (and the wiki page). The task is to make statements about particular features of interest and their particular relations, correct? Best, Jano On 02/24/2017 03:43 AM, Raúl García Castro wrote: > Dear all, > > I think that being able to represent which properties relate to a > certain feature is a requirement needed both in SOSA and in SSN. > > For example, in the SSN usage analysis > (http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/), even if it is not exhaustive, 3 > ontologies and 2 datasets use the SSN properties to do so. > > So I propose to open an issue to study this in deeper detail. > > Kind regards, > > El 24/2/17 a las 12:18, Rob Atkinson escribió: >> >> the FeatureOfInterest is an abstract class that a domain Class will be >> mapped to in an implementation - so the properties being measured are >> references to the properties defined in that class - i.e. I dont think >> we need to define the link that direction other than somehow stating >> this substitution >> >> i.e. perhaps its defined in the implementation by making a statement >> that domain:Class rdfs:subClassOf sosa:FeatureOfInterest or even that >> there is a restriction on the range on sosa:featureOfInterest to be >> domain:Class >> >> I think its worth an OWL expert to lay out the exact options here in >> examples. >> >> Rob >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 at 02:24 Maxime Lefrançois >> <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Implementing ACTION-268, I stumbled again on the fact that there is >> currently no link between FeatureOfInterest and xxxProperty defined >> in SOSA. >> See also the figure attached >> to >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Feb/0090.html >> . >> >> I would like us to discuss this shortly during the next call, there >> are two simple options that I listed in the following wiki page: >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Link_between_FeatureOfInterest_and_xxxProperty >> >> >> For your interest, in one of the core SEAS ontologies we promote the >> definition of "functional sub-properties of ssn:hasProperty". See >> [1]. >> >> For example, some domain ontology would define: >> >> ex:consumption a owl:ObjectProperty , owl:FunctionalProperty ; >> rdfs:subPropertyOf seas:hasProperty ; >> >> Then in static instance data: >> >> <fridge/1> a seas:FeatureOfInterest ; >> ex:consumption <fridge/1/consumption> . >> >> Core ontology seas:EvaluationOntology defines various ways to give >> such Property a value. >> >> [1] - https://w3id.org/seas/FeatureOfInterestOntology >> >> Kind regards, >> Maxime >> > > > -- 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 Sunday, 26 February 2017 22:03:19 UTC