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

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

From: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:22:15 +0000
To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "SDW WG Public List" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8FF1D6E9-BC10-4EBB-A853-29422206DEA1@anu.edu.au>
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


image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2017 03:22:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 03:22:56 UTC