- From: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:49:48 +0000
- To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALsPASWmMXZKR7a1MUpMEJcvnUVpZ-R1=pwdU9U3gqChe2ox7w@mail.gmail.com>
Dear all, With respect to item 4 in the SSN agenda tomorrow: a ssn:System can be linked to: - a ssn:OperatingRange through property ssn:hasOperatingRange. A ssn:OperatingRange can itself be linked: - to zero or more ssn:Condition in which this capability is true using ssn:inCondition ; - to zero or more ssn:OperatingProperty through property ssn:hasOperatingProperty . - a ssn:SurvivalRange through property ssn:hasSurvivalRange. A ssn:SurvivalRange can itself be linked: - to zero or more ssn:Condition in which this capability is true using ssn:inCondition ; - to zero or more ssn:SurvivalProperty through property ssn:hasSurvivalProperty . Then the hierarchy of operating properties is: ssn:OperatingProperty |- ssn:MaintenanceSchedule |- ssn:OperatingPowerRange And the hierarchy of survival properties is: ssn:SurvivalProperty |- ssn:SystemLifetime |- ssn:BatteryLifetime So there is a parallel between operating range and survival range, easy to grab. But it's very different from measurement range: a ssn:Sensor can be linked to a ssn:MeasurementCapability through property ssn:hasMeasurementCapability, a ssn:MeasurementCapability can be linked: - to zero or more ssn:Property to which it applies through property ssn:forProperty ; - to zero or more ssn:Condition in which this capability is true using ssn:inCondition ; - to zero or more ssn:MeasurementProperty through property ssn:hasMeasurementProperty . Then ssn:MeasurementRange is a sub class of ssn:MeasurementProperty. Hence MeasurementRange, despite "looking similar" to OperatingRange and SurvivalRange, is very different and must be used differently. I believe this is brings useless complexity to SSN. Could we simply deprecate ssn:MeasurementRange ? Best, Maxime
Received on Monday, 27 March 2017 16:50:32 UTC