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

Re: Implementation evidence - Producers

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:06:39 -0700
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <d15dc603-ec1b-c13f-823e-00e67f6c705f@ucsb.edu>
> 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.

I do not know any details of your roadmap but I am a bit more 
optimistic. SOSA also focuses on the Internet Of Things and is by far 
not SDW specific (in the sense that you can make observations about any 
topic but all of them are, of course, in space-time). Our examples range 
from smart homes to measures of water quality by government agencies. 
SOSA is the simplest model that (somewhat) completely captures the 
observation process we were able to come up with and agree on. I would 
not expect that schema.org has interest in all the SOSA classes and 
properties but I strongly believe that there will be a common (and 
alignable) core. After all, there is no way around talking about 
sensors, observations, the observed properties, and the things being 
observed. It would be fantastic if schema.org would reuse some of our 
work, but most importantly both should be alignable to foster 
interoperability. The only scenario, I would hope is preventable would 
indeed be two parallel approaches. This would also undermine the entire 
point of having a consensus-based standard in the first place. IMHO, 
seeing a wide adoption of such a joint OGC/W3C standard is not only 
important for publishing, retrieval, and reuse of observations on the 
Web but also because this was truly an open, bottom-up effort to which a 
wide set of parties contributed.

[And again, I am speaking for myself here, not necessarily being able to 
reflect the views of the entire group].

Jano


On 06/08/2017 08:15 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 8 June 2017 at 16:06, Joshua Lieberman 
> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com <mailto: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
>     <http://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
>>     <mailto: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 <http://schema.org/>)
>>     basing their designs partially or fully on SOSA (and SSN?). From
>>     the schema.org <http://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
>>     <mailto: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 <http://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
>>         <mailto:danbri@google.com>>
>>         *Date: *Wednesday, 7 June 2017 at 10:19 am
>>         *To: *Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au
>>         <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>
>>         *Cc: *"public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>"
>>         <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://Schema.org>. Would that
>>             be something you could kick off in the next 4 weeks with
>>             maybe a Change request to schema.org <http://schema.org/>?
>>
>>             Cheers,
>>             Armin
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
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 Thursday, 8 June 2017 17:07:20 UTC

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