Re: Naming the properties between FeatureOfInterest, xxxProperty, {Actuator/Sensor}, {Actuation/Observation}

Hi Maxime,

Thanks for providing these illustrations!

I did fall in a trap today in the phone call in voting again on names at the end of the telco that we have already decided upon, i.e. see https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/108 and the illustration below by Kerry (with the implemented solution added in red). I.e. we do have the following relations:

madeObservation(Sensor, Observation)
madeBySensor(Observation, Sensor)
observes(Sensor, ObservableProperty)
isObservedBy(ObservableProperty, Sensor)

There are some naming inconsistencies if you want to follow a specific pattern, but considering the constraints we are living with, i.e. existing SSN relation names and names in the OGC (O&M and SensorML), the below graph shows the minimal changes that are required in SSN and that are already implemented: https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/591


Unless there are strong reasons for revisiting these decisions, I would propose to move to the next issue. In particular, as you point out in your proposed solution that has consistent naming, that observes/isObservedBy would have a different “domain” and “range” than in SSN, which is, in my opinion a too high price to pay for a consistent property naming convention.

[cid:image001.png@01D29817.612BDCE0]


From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 11:18 am
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Naming the properties between FeatureOfInterest, xxxProperty, {Actuator/Sensor}, {Actuation/Observation}
Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 11:19 am

Dear all,

As a follow up to today's call, I created a simple figure that shows the old and current links between classes: FeatureOfInterest, xxxProperty, {Actuator/Sensor}, {Actuation/Observation}, as of 2017-03-08,

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/File:20170308-foi-property-object-event.png


I also produced another figure that illustrates an option where:
 1. naming is consistent between the ACT part and the SENSE part
 2. one can guess the name of the link between {Actuator, Actuation, Sensor, Observation} to xxxProperty by simply adding the string "Property" somewhere in the name of the link between  {Actuator, Actuation, Sensor, Observation} to FeatureOfInterest
 3. we rely on present or past to differentiate what is "potential" (i.e., links Actuator or Sensor), versus what is "done" (i.e., links {Actuation, Actuator}).

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/File:20170308-foi-property-object-event-maxime-would-be-happy-with.png


As you will understand, I am not 100% happy with this option neither:
  - it uses "observes" as the name of the link between Sensor and FeatureOfInterest, while in the old SSN the link "observes" was between a Sensor and a Property
  - it would imply that we reconsider the vote at https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Link_between_Actuation_and_Actuator



If anyone has a different proposal for the names, you can create a new option with the same "great style" using the pptx at the following URL:
 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/images/4/40/Foi-property-object-event.pptx



Also, now that we have a figure to evaluate all the links between classes FeatureOfInterest, xxxProperty, {Actuator/Sensor}, {Actuation/Observation}, it's clear to track the current progress of sosa/ssn, and identify the possible naming inconsistencies.

On the other hand, I absolutely don't have a clue on the best way to proceed to choose as a group each one of the names for the links as quickly as possible. If anyone has an idea about this, I'd be pleased to hear it.

Kind regards,
Maxime