Re: SSN - Notes dropped from O&M alignment chapter?

My perhaps naive take on this is that the making the SSN alignment
normative is an "acceptable kludge" to show the semantics of SOSA are
acceptable to a broader community. I would however suggest that from an OGC
canon perspective making the O&M alignment normative makes SOSA immediately
relevant to that particular community - and certainly far more
understandable (nothing worse that something that seems like its similar
but you're not sure what the differences may be!)

DUL alignment is probably only relevant to existing DUL users (and is
perhaps transitive anyway due to SSN alignment and can be dropped as a
separate artefact?)

Rob


On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 at 16:05 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Fair enough.
>
> I only created sosa-om and sosa-oml a week ago, so hardly any time for the
> SSN group to have inspected it.
>
>
>
> However, the basic alignment has been available since early July. It can
> be seen in
>
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/commits/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/om.ttl
>
> which was created at the same time as SOSA.
>
> This (om.ttl) was designed to be an OWL implementation of O&M as a
> ‘vertical’ extension of SOSA – prompted by the diagram which was also
> available back then
>
> It was also intended to explore the vertical modularization principle – it
> appeared to work well.
>
> Unfortunately we have not made time in the meetings since then to properly
> consider the modularization.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 22 December, 2016 12:37
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; Armin Haller <
> armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>
>
> *Subject:* RE: SSN - Notes dropped from O&M alignment chapter?
>
>
>
> I am not very happy about that section because it implies some level of
> endorsement  by the group and I suspect nobody  other than the author  has
> looked at it (or at least there is no evidence of that). Nor is there even
> any discussion on about what form such a thing might take (and yes, you
> raised some valid issues on this  topic,)  other than appearance on the
> diagram.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, it falls well down the priority list as far as I know it. And
> I am not happy with putting it into  the draft  when much more important
> things (on which that depends) are not settled, or not even begun.  For
> example, structural issues with sosa. For example, missing relationship
> between sosa and ssn.
>
>
>
> We have to prioritise  very carefully in the limited amount of time we
> have left. And forcing something into the WD is not a very helpful way to
> prioritise.
>
>
>
> See also my comments earlier about a  “primer”.
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>]
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 December 2016 2:55 PM
> *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: SSN - Notes dropped from O&M alignment chapter?
>
>
>
> OK – not really happy about that, as it reduces the possibility of
> scrutiny of important technical material. But maybe we can have quicker
> revision cycles moving forward.
>
>
>
> I also just noticed that all the alignment sections _*except*_ with O&M
> are marked ‘normative’. That was not my understanding at this stage.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au
> <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 December, 2016 14:24
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SSN - Notes dropped from O&M alignment chapter?
>
>
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>
>
> Kerry had an objection against these notes (that have been committed after
> Monday last week) to be included without consultation, therefore they have
> been removed for this WD. We will discuss them in our next meeting.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Armin
>
>
>
> *From: *"Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:05 am
> *To: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *SSN - Notes dropped from O&M alignment chapter?
> *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:10 am
>
>
>
> Somewhere in the changes in the last day, we also lost two NOTEs from the
> O&M alignment section, which pointed to RDF files containing proposed
> alignments in the GitHub repo. Can these be restored?
>
>
>
> Here is the dropped html:
>
>
>
> <p class="note">An RDF representation of a preliminary SOSA-O&amp;M
> alignment is at <a href="
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-om.ttl">
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-om.ttl</a> . URIs
> from the official ISO/TC 211 OWL implementation are used to identify the
> UML elements from ISO 19156/OGC O&amp;M. </p>
>
>
>
> <p class="note">An RDF representation of a preliminary SOSA-om-lite
> alignment is at <a href="
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-oml.ttl">
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-oml.ttl</a>. </p>
>
>
>
> Since the files are available, it would be helpful for people reviewing
> the document to be given a link to find them.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Danh Le Phuoc [mailto:notifications@github.com
> <notifications@github.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 December, 2016 08:46
> *To:* w3c/sdw <sdw@noreply.github.com>
> *Cc:* Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
> *Subject:* [w3c/sdw] ISSUE-114: Move SOSA description before SSN (#476)
>
>
>
> as proposed in the telco, I swapped section 4 and 5, this PR will address
> Issue-114, https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/114
> ------------------------------
> You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
>
>   https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/476
> Commit Summary
>
>    - ISSUE-114: Move SOSA description before SSN
>
> File Changes
>
>    - *M* ssn/index.html <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/476/files#diff-0>
>    (6459)
>
> Patch Links:
>
>    - https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/476.patch
>    - https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/476.diff
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/476>, or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlIL-21Pl6uCPbXegrGY14oxNn_T4Cxks5rKEyvgaJpZM4LSVad>
> .[image: mage removed by sender.]
>