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

Re: Implementation evidence - Producers

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 16:15:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7Db0sswwScnvc+upyPUHiNFXbyspm2D5PFrRpPNo12bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
On 8 June 2017 at 16:06, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
wrote:

> Dan,
>
> It might help for the group to endorse a specific path or procedure for SOSA
> - in - schema.org <http://SOSA-in-schema.org>, perhaps adoption as
> opposed to derivation. It would be unfortunate if users had to specify the
> “W3C” or the “Schema.org” version of a SOSA concept.
>

That's what can make these situations somewhat frustrating. In retrospect
we would've had less trouble for Schema.org's approach to Dataset
description if it had been more radically different to DCAT. Instead we
adopted a proposal that tried to stay as close as possible to the graph
structure from DCAT - https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Datasets - and it
was perceived by some as something of a fork.

I had a quick chat with Phil Archer on these issues recently, and he
suggested that there is value in having two different efforts at least
share broadly the same approach to the main entities and relationships,
even if the type and property names differ. At Schema.org our current
interest in sensors is more from the "internet of things" angle than from a
"Spatial data on the Web" agenda, although clearly there are strong
overlaps. We're also trying to figure out how to bridge to things like QUDT
and Data Cube, so it's unlikely we'd adopt all of SOSA wholesale.

Would it be useful to commit to making sure there are RDFS/OWL assertions
(equivalence, subtype etc.) in any term definitions that can usefully be
mapped? Phil - can you offer any guidance?

Dan



>
> —Josh
>
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks - it would certainly be helpful if the WG could include some
> resolution in its minutes, expressing support for the idea of other schema
> efforts (such as schema.org) basing their designs partially or fully on
> SOSA (and SSN?). From the schema.org side we'll certainly explore this
> enthusiastically, but it would be nice to be officially encouraged :)
>
> On 7 June 2017 at 03:49, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> I cannot speak for the whole group either, but similar to the feedback
>> from some of my co-editors, the intention of our modelling choices in SOSA
>> was that the core will eventually be “absorbed” into schema.org for
>> maximum impact. I think with proper attribution as was done with
>> GoodRelations there shouldn’t be any concern from the working group.
>> However, I will ask to put that on the agenda for our last SDW general
>> meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 10:19 am
>> *To: *Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
>> *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>> *Subject: *Re: Implementation evidence - Producers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd be happy to explore that, but it would be good to have some (even
>> informal) encouragement from the SDW WG that this would be a welcome
>> development. We did something similar with a DCAT-based Dataset design a
>> while ago and it seems that we inadvertently caused some frustration as it
>> was seen as a fork. It would be a pity to try to adopt a design based on
>> SOSA (or SOSA/SSN) and for that to be seen in a similar way. Do you think
>> the WG would welcome such an effort?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2017 at 00:37, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>>
>>
>> SSN http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ is now in rec-track and we are to
>> collect implementation evidences in the next 4 weeks. In fact, we need to
>> show demonstrated use in at least two producer implementations and two
>> consumer implementations, with producer implementations, according to our
>> interpretation of the Director’s words meaning that there needs to be two
>> ontologies that extend each term of SOSA/SSN.
>>
>>
>>
>> You indicated earlier in the working group that you would likely take the
>> simple SOSA core and integrate all or parts of it in Schema.org. Would
>> that be something you could kick off in the next 4 weeks with maybe a
>> Change request to schema.org?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2017 15:15:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:33 UTC